The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether to grant the Petition to Establish the Tesoro Community Development District (Petition), dated December 22, 2003, as supplemented and corrected. The local public hearing was for purposes of gathering information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by FLWAC.2
The Issue The issue on appeal is whether, pursuant to Clearwater Code of Ordinances Section 4-505, to sustain or reverse, with or without conditions, the decision of the Community Development Board on June 20, 2003, denying Cepcot Corporation's application to build a convenience store with two islands for pumping gas.
Findings Of Fact Petitioner The Cepcot Corporation (Cepcot) owns real property located at 657 Court Street in the downtown zoning district of the City of Clearwater (Property). On December 17, 2002, Cepcot filed a Flexible Development Application for a comprehensive infill redevelopment project (Application) on the Property. At the time of the proposal, the Property, which comprises 0.95 acres, was developed with a restaurant in a building that was the former Clearwater train station, a thrift store, and a park. The Application proposes the demolition of these improvements and their replacement with a 3200 square-foot convenience store and two gas pump islands. The Property fronts Chestnut Street to the south, East Avenue to the east, and Court Street to the north. The surrounding area is developed with office uses to the west and south, a privately owned utility plant to the north, and warehouse uses to the east. Upon the completion of the Memorial Causeway bridge, which is presently under construction, traffic to the beach will use Court Street and traffic from the beach will use Chestnut Street. In response to questions and suggestions from Respondent's staff, Cepcot revised the proposed site plan several times. The Application is presently complete. Respondent's Planning Department prepared a Staff Report, which finds that the proposed project does not meet certain requirements and recommends denial of the Application on several grounds. On June 17, 2003, Respondent's Community Development Board (CDB) considered the Application. CDB denied the Application and issued a development order explaining the reasons for denial as follows: The proposal is inconsistent with the adopted Community Development Code, the Comprehensive Plan, 1995 Clearwater Downtown Redevelopment Plan, and the Downtown Design Guidelines. The proposed automobile service station is not a permitted use within the downtown district. Approval of the proposed use may encourage other like uses and may be detrimental to downtown redevelopment. The proposal does not comply with the Flexible Development criteria as a comprehensive infill redevelopment project per Section 2-803. The proposal is not in compliance with the other standards in the Code including the general applicability criteria for Section 3-913. Most of the reasons cited for denial involve Respondent's Community Development Code (CDC), which is the land development regulations. The Property is in the Downtown District. CDC Section 2-901 states: "The intent and purpose of the Downtown District is to establish a mixed use downtown where citizens can work, live, and shop in a place which is the economic, governmental, entertainment and cultural focal point of a liveable city." CDC Section 2-902 sets forth the permitted uses within the Downtown District, and CDC Chart 2-100 lists permitted uses by zoning district. The proposed uses are not among the permitted uses for the Downtown District (or the Tourist District, to which portions of the record refer). CDC Section 2-903.C sets forth the following ten criteria to be applied in determining if the proposed use qualifies as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project (CIRP) that may qualify an otherwise non-permitted use: The development or redevelopment of the parcel proposed for development is otherwise impractical without deviations from the use, intensity and development standards; The development of the parcel proposed for development as a Comprehensive Infill Redevelopment Project will not reduce the fair market value of abutting properties; The uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are otherwise permitted in the City of Clearwater; The uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are compatible with adjacent land uses; Suitable sites for development or redevelopment of the uses or mix of uses within the comprehensive infill redevelopment project are not otherwise available in the City of Clearwater; The development of the parcel proposed for development as an comprehensive infill redevelopment project will upgrade the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; The design of the proposed comprehensive infill redevelopment project creates a form and function which enhances the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole; Flexibility in regard to lot width, required setbacks, height and off-street parking are justified by the benefits to community character and the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development and the City of Clearwater as a whole; Adequate off-street parking in the immediate vicinity according to the shared parking formula in Division 14 of Article 3 will be available to avoid on-street parking in the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development; The design of all buildings complies with the Downtown District design guidelines in Division 5 of Article 3. CDC Section 3-913.A sets forth the General Applicability criteria. CDC Section 3-913.A.1 states: "The proposed development of the land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density, and character of adjacent properties in which it is located." CDC Section 3-913.A.5 states: The proposed development is consistent with the community character of the immediate vicinity of the parcel proposed for development."
The Issue The issues are whether Respondent Lennar Homes, Inc., is entitled to an environmental resource permit to construct a 516- acre residential development in Miami-Dade County known as Lakes by the Bay South Commons Project and, if so, under what conditions.
Findings Of Fact On May 18, 2001, Respondent Lennar Homes, Inc. (Lennar Homes), filed an application with Respondent South Florida Water Management District (District) for an environmental resource permit (ERP) for a 516-acre residential development in Miami- Dade County known as Lakes By The Bay (Project). On June 12, 2002, Lennar Homes filed a revised ERP application for the Project. The application, as revised, is for an ERP conceptually approving the construction of a surface water management system to serve the Project and authorizing the construction to clear the site, excavate the wet retention areas, and expand an existing lake. Providing 3300 single- family residences, the Project is the last phase of a master planned residential development, which presently contains over 1500 residences north and west of the Project. The Project is bordered by Southwest 97th Avenue to the west, Southwest 87th Avenue to the east, Southwest 216th Street to the north, and Southwest 232nd Street to the south. Immediately south of the Project are a regional wastewater treatment plant and county solid waste landfill. These facilities occupy opposing banks of the C-1 Canal, which runs a short distance from the southwest corner of the Project. The Project site is drained, cleared, and infested with Brazilian pepper and melaleuca. The Project will impact 135 acres of wetlands, but these wetlands are severely degraded due to the construction of roads, berms, and canals. No evidence suggests that the site is presently used by any listed species. At present, drainage across the site is from west to east, where stormwater is intercepted by the L-31E levy and canal running along the west side of Southwest 87th Avenue. At its nearest point (the southeast corner), the Project is about one mile from the southern part of Biscayne Bay. Biscayne Bay is an Outstanding Florida Water. Much of its central and southern parts, including the area closest to the Project site, are within Biscayne National Park. In contrast to the northern part of Biscayne Bay, the central and southern parts contain significant mangrove-lined coastal wetlands. The bay bottom in southern Biscayne Bay hosts dense seagrass beds, and coral reefs within Biscayne National Park support a diverse community of marine life. The L-31E levy and canal redirect stormwater from the Project site south to the C-1 Canal, which runs, in this area, in a northwest-to-southeast direction before emptying into Biscayne Bay. The C-1 Canal drains an extensive area to the north and northwest of the Project. The landfill and water treatment plant are a short distance downstream of the Proposed Project. The parties have stipulated that the Project meets the following ERP criteria (with minor rephrasing from the stipulation): The Project will not adversely affect significant historical and archaeological resources. The Project is not located within an Outstanding Florida Water and will not result in the direct discharge of surface water into an Outstanding Florida Water. Lennar has proposed mitigation to offset the adverse impacts of the Project, and the mitigation is in the same drainage basin as the adverse impacts. Therefore, the Project will not generate unlawful cumulative impacts, in violation of Section 373.414(8)(a)-(b), Florida Statutes. The Project will not cause adverse water quality impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands, in violation of Rule 40E-4.301(a), Florida Administrative Code. The Project will not cause adverse flooding to onsite or offsite property, in violation of Rule 40E-4.301(b), Florida Administrative Code. The Project will not cause adverse impacts to existing surface water storage and conveyance capabilities, in violation of Rule 40E-4.301(c), Florida Administrative Code. The Project will not adversely impact the maintenance of surface or ground water levels or surface water flows established pursuant to Section 373.042, Florida Statutes, in violation of Rule 40E-4.301(g), Florida Administrative Code. The Project will not cause adverse impacts to a work of the District established pursuant to Section 373.086, Florida Statutes, in violation of Rule 40E-4.301(h), Florida Administrative Code. The Project will be conducted by an entity with sufficient financial, legal, and administrative capability to ensure that the activity will be undertaken in accordance with the terms and conditions of the permit, as required by Rule 40E-4.301(j), Florida Administrative Code. No special basin or geographic area criteria established in Chapter 40E-41, Florida Administrative Code, are applicable to the Project. The Project will not adversely affect navigation or the flow of water or cause harmful erosion or shoaling, as prohibited by Section 373.414(1)(a)3, Florida Statutes. The Project will be permanent, as addressed by Section 373.414(1)(a)5, Florida Statutes. The District issued its Staff Report on March 13, 2002. The Staff Report approves the proposed mitigation plan, which would enhance or create and preserve 135 acres of onsite wetlands by creating an upland buffer, emergent marsh and transitional herbaceous shrub areas, and tree island areas. Much of the proposed mitigation area will occupy the southern half of the perimeter of the Project site. As proposed in the mitigation plan, Lennar Homes will grant the District a conservation easement over the mitigation area and will be required to meet certain mitigation performance conditions. Shortly prior to the commencement of the final hearing in this case, the District decided to change the proposed permit regarding mitigation. The purpose of the change was to require Lennar Homes to allow the mitigation area to be used as a flowway between the C-1 Canal, upstream of the nutrient loads deposited by the landfill and water treatment plant, and an area to the east of the Project site. The receiving area consists of vestigial tidal creeks leading to presently remaining tidal creeks that empty into small embayments within Biscayne Bay. The general purpose of the change was to remediate the loss of freshwater flows into these tidal creeks, the embayments, and Biscayne Bay that resulted from the construction of drainage canals and levies, such as C-1 and L31-E. Accordingly, the District issued an Addendum to Staff Report on August 9, 2002. The Addendum adds an easement to the original mitigation plan by adding Special Condition #24, which states: No later than 30 days after permit issuance and prior to commencement of construction resulting in wetland impacts, the permittee shall submit two certified copies of the recorded flowage easement for the mitigation area and associated buffers and a GIS disk of the recorded easement area The recorded easement shall be in substantial compliance with Exhibit 41. Any proposed modifications to the approved form must receive prior written consent from the District. The easement must be free of encumbrances or interests in the easement which the District determines are contrary to the intent of the easement. . . . Exhibit 41 (actually Exhibit 41A) is entitled, "Perpetual Flowage, Inundation, Construction, and Access Easement." Representing a grant from Lennar Homes to the District, the easement (Flowage Easement) is for any and all purposes deemed by [the District] to be necessary, convenient, or incident to, or in connection with, the unrestricted right to regularly, or at any time, and for any length of time[,] overflow, flood, inundate, flow water on, across, and through, store water on, and submerge the [encumbered property], together with the unrestricted right at any time to enter upon and access the [encumbered property], with any and all vehicles and equipment, including but not limited to the right to move, transport, store, operate, and stage equipment, materials and supplies, in order to construct, operate, and maintain any and all structures, improvements, equipment, pumps, ditches and berms upon the [encumbered property] deemed by [the District] to be necessary, convenient, incident to or in connection with the implementation of the BBCW Project on the [encumbered property], or in connection with any project in the interest of flood control, water management, conservation, environmental restoration, water storage, or reclamation, and allied purposes, that may be conducted now or in the future by the [District], or to carry out the purposes and intent of the statutory authority of the [District], presently existing or that may be enacted in the future, together with all right, title, and interest in and to the [BBCW] Project Structures. * * * This Easement shall at no time be construed to alleviate or release [Lennar Home's] responsibilities and require [sic] under ERP Permit No. to construct and maintain an on-site mitigation area as described and authorized in the ERP Permit. Other provisions of the Flowage Easement impose all risk of loss in connection with the flowway upon Lennar Homes, which indemnifies the District from all losses, costs, damages, and liability in connection with the flowway. On September 5, 2002, after the hearing, but a few days before the taking of the post-hearing testimony, the District issued a Revised Addendum to Staff Report. The Revised Addendum restates Special Condition #24 with a few relatively minor changes and adds Special Conditions ##25 and 26. Special Condition #25 attempts to harmonize the Flowage Easement with the original mitigation plan contemplated by the Staff Report. Special Condition #25 provides that when the District exercises its rights under the Flowage Easement, other special conditions shall be deleted, so as, for example, to relieve Lennar Homes of its obligations to maintain the mitigation area (except for a 25-foot buffer) and post a mitigation-performance bond. Special Condition #26 changes the language in the conservation easement, which was contemplated by the original Staff Report and mitigation plan, to harmonize this easement with the Flowage Easement. Lennar Homes has submitted a version of the Revised Addendum to Staff Report that would satisfy its concerns. The Lennar Homes version would require the District, within 30 days after issuing the ERP to Lennar Homes, to obtain permits from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the local environmental regulatory agency, although not the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, which, under state law, would have to issue an ERP to the District before it could construct the flowway. The Lennar Homes version would also give the District only 90 days after issuing the ERP to Lennar Homes within which to exercise its right to construct the flowway and would sequence events so that Lennar Homes would not spend the estimated $2 million on wetland enhancement and creation and then lose the investment due to the inundation of the mitigation site with water, as authorized by the Flowage Easement. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan plays a crucial role in this case. But for this plan, the District would not have attached the additional conditions contained in the Addendum to Staff Report and Revised Addendum to Staff Report--without which conditions, the District now contends that Lennar Homes is not entitled to the ERP. Congress initially authorized the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project in 1948. Objectives of the C&SF Project included flood control, water supply for municipal, industrial, and agricultural uses, prevention of saltwater intrusion, and protection of fish and wildlife. The C&SF Project attained these objectives, in part, through a primary system of 1000 miles each of levees and canals, 150 water-control structures, and 16 major pump stations. Unintended consequences of the C&SF Project have included the irreversible loss of vast areas of wetlands, including half of the original Everglades; the alteration in the water storage, timing, and flow capacities of natural drainage systems; and the degradation of water quality and habitat due to over-drainage or extreme fluctuations in the timing and delivery of freshwater into the coastal wetlands and estuaries. In 1992, Congress authorized the C&SF Project Comprehensive Review Study (Restudy). The objective of the Restudy was to reexamine the C&SF Project to determine the feasibility of modifying the project to restore the South Florida ecosystem and provide for the other water-related needs of the region. Completed in April 1999, the Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (Restudy Report) notes that, among the unintended consequences of the C&SF Project, was "unsuitable freshwater flows to Florida and Biscayne bays and Lake Worth Lagoon [that] adversely impact salinity and physically alter fish and wildlife habitat." The Restudy Report states that, absent comprehensive, new restoration projects, the "overall health of the [South Florida] ecosystem will have substantially deteriorated" by 2050. The Restudy Report recommends a comprehensive plan for the restoration, protection, and preservation of the water resources of Central and South Florida. This plan is known as the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP). Acknowledging the complex dynamics of the restoration goals identified in CERP, the Restudy Report establishes Project Implementation Reports to tie together CERP and the detailed design necessary for the construction of individual restoration projects and adaptive assessments to monitor the performance of individual components, incorporate new data, and refine future components. The Restudy Report is, among other things, a programmatic environmental impact statement. The Restudy Report states: "Due to the conceptual nature of [CERP] and the associated uncertainties, many subsequent site-specific environmental documents will be required for the individual separable project elements." In May 2002, the District and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed a draft of the Project Management Plan for the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW PMP). Noting that a "major goal of [CERP] is to improve freshwater deliveries to Biscayne Bay," the BBCW PMP identifies the BBCW project as the means by which to restore some of the coastal wetlands and tributaries in south Dade County. The BBCW PMP states that the primary purpose of the BBCW project, which is one of sixty projects contained in CERP, is to "redistribute freshwater runoff from the watershed into Biscayne Bay, away from the canal discharges that exist today and provide a more natural and historic overland flow through existing and or improved coastal wetlands." The Cutler Wetlands subcomponent of the BBCW project encompasses the Project site. One of the objectives of the Cutler Wetlands subcomponent is to divert water from the C-1 Canal upstream of the landfill and water treatment plant to the east of the L-31E levy and canal. In connection with the Cutler Wetlands subcomponent and the possible role of the flowway identified in this case, the District retained Dr. John Meeder, a Biscayne Bay ecologist associated with the Southeast Environmental Resource Center at Florida International University, to perform an abbreviated study and issue a report concerning the conditions required for the restoration of the coastal wetlands in the vicinity of the coastal wetlands to the north of the C-1 canal and east of the Project site (Meeder Report). The Meeder Report studies two feasible freshwater delivery options and prefers a bypass flowway along Southwest 224th Street, across roughly the middle of the Project site and north of most of the proposed mitigation area, to the L-31E levy and canal. The distribution system resulting from the preferred route would use the natural grade of the land to divert the water to the coastal wetlands and tidal creeks to the east and south that are targeted for rehydration. The alternative flowway route would run along Southwest 232nd Street, in the approximate area of the Flowage Easement, but would require pumping to distribute the water north along the L-31E levy and canal for release to the targeted coastal wetlands and tidal creeks. Obviously, the District has chosen the less-preferred route to minimize the impact on the Project. The Meeder Report considers the amount of freshwater required for two rehydration options. In the first option, water diverted from the C-1 Canal and passing through the flowway would rehydrate only the tidal creeks, which then empty into the embayments that lead to Biscayne Bay. In the second option, water diverted from the C-1 Canal and passing through the flowway would rehydrate the tidal creeks and the surrounding coastal wetlands. To maintain an appropriate salinity range and rehydrate only the tidal creeks, the flowway would need to deliver 70 acre/feet per day in the dry season and 95 acre/feet per day in the wet season. To maintain an appropriate salinity range and rehydrate the tidal creeks and surrounding coastal wetlands, the flowway would need to deliver 209 acre/feet per day in the dry season and 1139 acre/feet per day in the wet season. Several factors militate against an attempt to rehydrate the coastal wetlands surrounding the targeted tidal creeks. Potential errors in data and analysis increase in magnitude with the larger freshwater diversions needed to rehydrate the tidal creeks and surrounding coastal wetlands, and Dr. Meeder admitted that the largest value was very approximate. Potentially serious impacts upon salinity and associated vegetative communities increase in likelihood with the larger freshwater diversions needed to rehydrate the tidal creeks and surrounding coastal wetlands. Also, the diversion of larger volumes of water from the C-1 Canal may have adverse impacts on downstream conditions. At the point of the C-1 Canal where it first enters the landfill and wastewater treatment plant (just downstream from the flowway), the average flow of the C-1 Canal is 350 acre/feet per day, but the median flow is only 160 acre/feet per day. (The average flow rate is skewed by occasional, very high daily flows of 4000 acre/feet during large storm events.) The larger volumes diverted to rehydrate the tidal creeks and surrounding coastal wetlands would, at times, withdraw a relatively large portion of the water from the C-1 Canal. For these reasons, the District justifiably elected to seek a flowway that would rehydrate only the tidal creeks, including the vestigial tidal creeks, but not the surrounding coastal wetlands. Petitioners and Lennar Homes have raised numerous other issues about the flowway that the District seeks to obtain. The District requires a 200-acre flowway to rehydrate adequately the vestigial tidal creeks, the presently remaining tidal creeks, the small embayment, and then the subject area of Biscayne Bay, but the mitigation area potentially available on the Project site is limited to about 135 acres, and some uncertainty exists as to whether the District can obtain control of the remaining land necessary to assemble a 200-acre flowway. Even the 200-acre flowway is probably insufficient to accommodate significant water treatment, so water quality issues remain outstanding, notwithstanding the better water quality upstream of the landfill and water treatment plant. Other issues arise from the requirement that the District obtain an ERP from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, as well as one or more federal agencies, before it could construct the flowway. To the extent that this requirement delays and possibly precludes the construction of the flowway, this requirement militates against the inclusion of the Flowage Easement and new special conditions in the ERP. To the extent that this requirement insures that the flowway will not cause flooding or adverse water quality in the tidal creeks, embayment, and ultimately Biscayne Bay, this requirement militates in favor of the inclusion of the Flowage Easement and new special conditions in the ERP; the absence of detailed specifications for the design and construction of the flowway precludes any assurance that the flowway would not flood or otherwise damage the upland portion of the Project site, so subsequent permit-review is essential to the present inclusion of the Flowage Easement and new special conditions in the ERP. It is impossible to credit the District's evidence that various transition-zone wetland species would survive inundation under unknown flow rates, of variable depths, and of unknown and possibly indefinite duration. Lennar Homes legitimately is concerned that its substantial investment in mitigation, pursuant to the original mitigation plan, would be wasted if the District constructs the flowway. As presently drafted, the Flowage Easement and new special conditions contemplate that Lennar Homes would construct the original mitigation, at a substantial cost, and the District would later construct and inundate the flowway through largely the same area. Marketing of parcels in close proximity to the flowway might be complicated by the uncertainty concerning what will occupy the area beyond a resident's backyard--a benign passive mitigation area or a flowway that may range from a intermittently wet slough or glade to a placid lake to a raging swollen river--and by the probability that the District would not construct the flowway until 2009. The District justifies the Flowage Easement and new special conditions on two grounds. First, the District contends that the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions is harmful to the District's water resources. Second, the District contends that the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions is inconsistent with the overall objectives of the District. The first argument misses the mark. A project that is otherwise permittable, except for the fact that it interferes with the establishment of a restoration project, does not harm the water resources of the District; such a Project interferes with the improvement of the water resources of the District. In this case, the parties have stipulated that the Project will not cause adverse impacts due to the original mitigation plan. If adverse impacts means anything, it means harm to the water resources of the District. The second argument requires the identification of the District's objectives. The Florida Legislature has declared at Section 373.1502(2)(a), Florida Statutes, that CERP implementation is "in the public interest and is necessary for restoring, preserving and protecting the South Florida ecosystem . . .." In May 2000, the Florida Legislature enacted the Everglades Restoration Investment Act, which commits Florida to contribute over $2 billion for the implementation of CERP-- Florida's share for the first ten years of implementation. The Florida Legislature has made the implementation of CERP an overall objective of the District. Several factors are important in determining whether the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions would be inconsistent with the overall objective of the District to implement CERP. These factors require consideration of the purpose of the proposed restoration project; the extent of completion of the project's design, permitting, and construction; if the project has not yet been designed or permitted, the likelihood of construction; when the project would be constructed; the impact of the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions upon the proposed restoration project; and the existence of feasible alternatives to accomplish the same objectives as those achieved by the proposed restoration project. These factors generally favor the issuance of the ERP, but only with the Flowage Easement and new special conditions. The flowway project would rehydrate a portion of the estuarine waters of southern Biscayne Bay that are sufficiently healthy to respond vigorously to the new freshwater infusions, so the project is important. The C-1 Canal appears to be the only readily available source of sufficient volumes of freshwater to achieve the rehydration of the tidal creeks, and the proposed path through the Lennar Homes mitigation area appears to be the only readily available means by which to divert the freshwater to the targeted tidal creeks. If the flowway project is limited to the tidal creeks and does not extend to the surrounding coastal wetlands, the likely environmental impacts appear to be positive on the receiving areas and the downstream portion of the C-1 Canal. For these reasons, even though the project is at an early conceptual stage and construction would not start for six years, it seems likely to be constructed. The apparent difficulty in securing the necessary additional 65 acres may yet be overcome through property acquisition, and, if not, the District may be able to increase the capacity of the flowway without jeopardizing the adjacent uplands. For the reasons stated in the Conclusions of Law below, other factors in determining whether the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions would be inconsistent with the overall objective of the District to implement CERP require consideration of the impact upon Lennar Homes in accommodating the Flowage Easement and new special conditions. With two exceptions, the Flowage Easement and new special conditions do not impose an inordinate burden upon Lennar Homes. The flowway would occupy the portion of the Project site that would have been subject to the conservation easement that was part of the original mitigation plan. Lennar Homes' responsibility for maintenance is considerably lessened if the District constructs the flowway, whose special maintenance needs can only be met by the District or its contractors. Although Lennar Homes may experience some sales resistance due to the uncertainty of the use of the mitigation area, the assurances gained from the subsequent permitting process, during which the District will seek an ERP from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection for the construction of the flowway, should allay reasonable concerns about flooding and other damage to the adjacent uplands. In three respects, though, the District has abused its discretion in preparing the Flowage Easement and new special conditions. First, the District abused its discretion in requiring Lennar Homes to perform mitigation work in the mitigation area, pursuant to the original mitigation plan, to the extent that the products of such work will likely be destroyed or substantially harmed by the construction and operation of the flowway. The value of mitigation rests largely in the functions that it can support through longterm viability. The construction and operation of the surface water management system, the posting of a sufficient bond to guarantee future performance under either mitigation scenario, the execution and delivery into escrow of deeds and other legal instruments sufficient to meet the requirements of the Flowage Easement and new special conditions (subject to the two matters discussed in this and the two following paragraphs), and the construction of the portion of the original mitigation that would not be impacted by the flowway sufficiently respond to the need for mitigation, until the District finally determines the need for it to exercise its rights under the Flowage Easement. Second, the District abused its discretion by omitting any timeframe for the District to exercise its rights under the Flowage Easement and new special conditions. The timeframe proposed by Lennar Homes for the District to make this final determination of whether to proceed with the flowway is unreasonable and ignores the substantial period of time required to design, fund, and permit the flowway. But a timeframe may be especially important if Lennar Homes encounters more marketing resistance than might be reasonably anticipated. Therefore, the new conditions should provide that if construction of the flowway is not substantially completed by 2011, then the Flowage Easement shall be released and returned to Lennar Homes, upon its commencement, without delay, of the construction of any of the original mitigation that it did not already complete. Third, the District also abused its discretion in the Flowage Easement and new special conditions in the allocation of liability for the flowway, including apparently its construction, maintenance, and operation. The District would impose this liability upon Lennar Homes, which would have to indemnify the District for construction damage or any malfunctions in the operation of the flowway, such as damage to adjacent uplands by flooding, erosion, or contamination. The District has imposed this restoration project on Lennar Homes and has done so, not to avoid harm to the District's water resources, but to achieve the overall objective of the District to implement CERP. The District and its contractors, not Lennar Homes, will construct, maintain, and operate the flowway. The District, not Lennar Homes, has the expertise in the design, construction, and operation of water-control facilities of this type. This record does not disclose a single legitimate reason to impose upon Lennar Homes the liability for any aspect of the flowway that does not result from the acts or omissions of Lennar Homes or its assignees as owners of the adjacent uplands. Although, as stated in its proposed recommended order, the District does not object to the standing of Petitioners, Respondents did not stipulate to the standing of any Petitioners. Petitioners The Everglades Trust, Inc., and The Everglades Foundation, Inc., offered no witnesses concerning their standing, and no exhibits address the standing of these parties. The record thus fails to demonstrate that Petitioners The Everglades Trust, Inc., and The Everglades Foundation, Inc., are substantially affected by the proposed agency action. Petitioner National Parks Conservation Association, Inc., (National Parks) is a not-for-profit corporation registered in Florida as a foreign corporation. The corporate purpose of National Parks is to protect and enhance America's national parks, including Biscayne National Park, for present and future generations. National Parks seeks the protection and enhancement of the Biscayne National Park through the successful implementation of CERP. National Parks has 350,000 members, including 19,900 in Florida. Members of National Parks use Biscayne National Park for recreational boating, fishing, snorkeling, fish watching, scuba diving, and camping (on the barrier islands). Members of National Parks are actively monitoring the implementation of CERP. Petitioner Florida Audubon Society, Inc. (Florida Audubon), is a Florida not-for-profit corporation that was originally incorporated in Florida in 1900. The corporate purpose of Florida Audubon is to protect, conserve, and restore Florida's heritage through the preservation of the state's natural resources. Florida Audubon has adopted as its highest priority the design and implementation of CERP. Florida Audubon has 32,000 members in Florida, including over 2100 members in Dade County. Numerous of these members engage in bird watching, recreation, and scientific research in Biscayne National Park. Florida Audubon organizes membership trips to Biscayne Bay, conducts its annual Bird-athon and Christmas Bird Count in the vicinity of Biscayne Bay, and conducts various environment educational programs in and concerning Biscayne Bay. The issuance of the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions would substantially impact the ability of the District to restore this part of Biscayne Bay. Without such restoration, the functions of Biscayne Bay will slowly decline until eventually the overall health of the entire South Florida ecosystem will be substantially deteriorated. Thus, National Parks and Florida Audubon would be substantially affected by the issuance of the ERP without the Flowage Easement and new special conditions.
Recommendation It is RECOMMENDED that the District issue the environmental resource permit with the Flowage Easement and new special conditions, as modified in accordance with the matters presented in paragraphs 39-41. DONE AND ENTERED this 10th day of January, 2003, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. ROBERT E. MEALE Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 SUNCOM 278-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 10th day of January, 2003. COPIES FURNISHED: Henry Dean, Executive Director South Florida Water Management District Post Office Box 24680 West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680 Richard Grosso Louise Caro, Certified Legal Intern Environmental & Land Use Law Center, Inc. Shepard Broad Law Center 3305 College Avenue Fort Lauderdale, Florida 33314 Marcy I. LaHart Marcy I. LaHart, P.A. 711 Talladaga Street West Palm Beach, Florida 33405 Erin L. Deady Environmental Counsel 444 Brickell Avenue, Suite 850 Miami, Florida 33131 E. Thom Rumberger Rumberger, Kirk & Caldwell, P.A. 403 East Park Avenue Tallahassee, Florida 32301 Luna Ergas Phillips Douglas H. MacLaughlin Office of Counsel South Florida Water Management District 3301 Gun Club Road West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 Frank E. Matthews Gary V. Perko Hopping Green & Sams, P.A. Post Office Box 6526 Tallahassee, Florida 32314
The Issue The issue is whether Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B- 33.005(3)(a) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority for the reasons alleged by Petitioners.
Findings Of Fact Austin is the owner of real property located at 1580 Indian Pass Road, Port St. Joe, Florida. Heslin is the owner of real property located at 1530 Indian Pass Road, Port St. Joe, Florida. Lighthouse is the applicant for a coastal construction control line (CCCL) permit for structures and activities proposed to occur on property located adjacent to Austin’s property. Heslin’s property is located within 500 feet of the proposed project site. The property for which the CCCL permit is sought is located landward of the mean high water line (MHWL). On January 31, 2006, the Department gave notice of issuance of a CCCL permit to Lighthouse. The proposed permit authorizes activities 228 feet seaward of the CCCL, specifically, the construction of a subdivision roadway/cul-de- sac including asphalt and limerock foundation, excavation of soil, filling of soil, ornamental street lights, stormwater management swales, below grade utilities, and dune enhancement plantings. Lighthouse obtained a subdivision plat for the site from Gulf County, Florida, on June 28, 2005, which includes 12 platted lots seaward of the CCCL, each approximately one quarter acre in size. When issuing the CCCL permit, the Department did not consider the platted subdivision that will be serviced by the permitted roadway project. Austin filed a petition challenging the issuance of the CCCL permit to Lighthouse. The challenge is styled Gloria Austin v. Lighthouse Walk, LLC and Department of Environmental Protection, DOAH Case No. 06-1186 (hereafter “the Permit Challenge”), and is pending before Judge Alexander. Heslin sought and was granted leave to intervene in the Permit Challenge. Paragraphs 6, 10, and 18 of the Petition for Formal Administrative Proceeding (Petition) in the Permit Challenge state as follows: 6. The proposed subdivision that is intended to be built by Lighthouse, will result in incompatible high density residential development seaward of the costal control line and seaward of the Petitioners’ homes. The incompatible and inappropriate nature of this subdivision will greatly increase the danger of Petitioners’ homes being damages by storm driven debris in the event of a major storm event such as a hurricane occurring in this area. * * * The area in question on Cape San Blas is presently developed in very low density single family home sites. The proposed development would create high density development seaward of the coastal construction control line for which construction is totally unnecessary and could easily be greatly minimized. The parcel in question could accommodate a residential subdivision without encroaching seaward of the present coastal construction and control line. In light of the above, it is clear the project violates Rule 62B- 33.005(3), Florida Administrative Code. * * * 18. The proposed permit would create a high density subdivision which would create a multitude of small single family lots on this site. By granting the permit for this site development, the Department is condoning the intended construction of a multitude of single family residences which are totally inappropriate for the beach dune system in this area. The combined effect of the construction of single family residences on the proposed plat seaward of the coastal construction control line will maximize impacts to the beach dune system, not minimize the impact as required by the Department’s rules in Chapter 62B-33, Florida Administrative Code. Lighthouse moved to dismiss the Petition in the Permit Challenge, to strike certain allegations, and for an Order in limine in that case. The Department filed a memorandum of law in support of Lighthouse’s motion, stating, in part: Contrary to Petitioner’s argument in paragraph 2(b), the Department’s rule contains a standard for determination of “cumulative effects.” Rule 62B- 33.005(3)(a), F.A.C., provides that “[I]n assessing the cumulative effects of a proposed activity, the Department shall consider the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other similar activities already permitted or for which a permit application is pending within the same fixed coastal cell.” The Department’s rules also contain a regulatory definition of “impacts” (not “cumulative impacts” as argued by the Petitioner). Therefore, consideration of future applications not yet pending with the Department is outside the scope of the Department’s permitting jurisdiction under the rule. Contrary to the arguments made by Petitioner in paragraph 2(c) and (d) construction of a “residential subdivision” is not a foregone conclusion. First, in Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a), F.A.C., it states that “[e]ach application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision; therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell. Second, use by an applicant of the single family home general permit authorized by Section 161.053(19), F.S., and existing in Rule 62B-34.070, F.A.C., is not governed by the principle that a general permit is authorized without additional agency action. The concept of a general permit adopted by rule exists in many different permitting programs of the Department. The different permitting programs are created and governed by their organic statutes, and only those statutes (and rules promulgated under them) should be looked to for the legal principles that apply in the permitting program. (See paragraph 4. above). The case law cited by Petitioner in paragraph 2(c) of her response refers to general permits established under Chapter 403, F.S., specifically authorized by Section 408.814, F.S. Section 403.814(1) provides for use of a general permit 30 days after giving notice to the department “without any agency action by the department.” See § 403.814(1), Fla. Stat. (2005). No similar provision appears in Section 161.053(19), F.S. In addition, Section 403.814, F.S. provides for administrative review of the use of a general permit where the Department publishes or requires the applicant to publish notice of its intent to use a general permit. See § 403.814(3), Fla. Stat. (2005); Hamilton County Bd. of County Comm’rs v. State, Department of Environmental Regulation, 587 So.2d 1378 (Fla. 1st DCA 1991) and City of Jacksonville v. Department of Environmental Protection, 24 F.A.L.R. 938 (Fla. DEP 2001). By Order dated May 23, 2006, Judge Alexander struck paragraphs 6, 10, and 18 of the Petition in the Permit Challenge, holding, in part: Second, the Motion to Strike is granted in part, and paragraphs 6, 10, and 18 are stricken. The Motion to Strike paragraphs 9 and 19 is denied since paragraph 9 simply tracks the language in Florida Administrative Code Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a), and neither paragraph makes specific reference to impacts from the proposed construction of a residential subdivision. Although paragraphs 5 and 13 refer to alleged impacts to “wildlife habitat,” “drainage,” and “wind and water borne missiles during a storm,” which might arguably include matters unrelated to this action, the granting of the Motion in Limine below precludes Petitioner from introducing evidence regarding impacts to habitat other than sea turtles, the stormwater exemption, and wind and water borne missiles caused by the proposed construction of a residential subdivision. Finally, the Motion in Limine is granted, and Petitioner (and Intervenor) shall be precluded from introducing evidence in support of allegations relating to cumulative impacts caused by the proposed construction of a residential subdivision, debris and wind and water borne missiles from the proposed construction of a residential subdivision, the exemption of swales from stormwater discharge permit requirements, and any habitat impacts unrelated to sea turtles. See § 161.053, Fla. Stat. (2005); Fla. Admin. Code R. 62B- 33.005, 62B-33.007, and 62-25.030(1)(c). Petitioners have alleged in this case that Rule 62B- 33.005(3)(a) is an invalid exercise of delegated legislative authority. Lighthouse has disputed that allegation in its Motion for Summary Final Order, which is fully supported by the Department. Section 161.053(5)(a), Florida Statutes, was first adopted by the Legislature in 1983. The statute was amended without any substantive changes to its text in 1987. Section 161.053(5)(a)3., Florida Statutes (2005),2 currently states in pertinent part: Except in those areas where local zoning and building codes have been established pursuant to subsection (4), a permit to alter, excavate, or construct on property seaward of established coastal construction control lines may be granted by the department as follows: The department may authorize an excavation or erection of a structure at any coastal location as described in subsection (1) upon receipt of an application from a property and/or riparian owner and upon the consideration of facts and circumstances, including: * * * 3. Potential impacts of the location of such structures or activities, including potential cumulative effects of any proposed structures or activities upon such beach- dune system, which, in the opinion of the department, clearly justify such a permit. Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) was amended in 1996 as follows: (3) After reviewing all information required pursuant to this Chapter, the Department shall: (a) Deny any application for an activity which either individually or cumulatively would result in a significant adverse impact including potential cumulative effects. In assessing the cumulative effects of a proposed activity, the Department shall consider the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other activities proposed within the same fixed coastal cell. The impact assessment shall include the anticipated effects of the construction on the coastal system and marine turtles. Each application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision, therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell. * * * (7) An individual structure or activity may not have an adverse impact on the beach or dune system at a specific site, however, a number of similar structures or activities along the coast may have a significant cumulative impact resulting in the general degradation of the beach or dune system along that segment of shoreline. The Department may not authorize any construction or activity whose cumulative impact will threaten the beach or dune system or its recovery potential following a major storm event. An exception to this policy may be made with regard to those activities undertaken pursuant to Subsections 16B-33.005(3)(d) and 16B- 33.006(2), Florida Administrative Code. Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) was amended in 2000, as follows: After reviewing all information required pursuant to this Chapter, the Department shall: * * * Deny any application for an activity which either individually or cumulatively would result in a significant adverse impact including potential cumulative effects. In assessing the cumulative effects of a proposed activity, the Department shall consider the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other similar activities already permitted or for which a permit application is pending within the same fixed coastal cell. The impact assessment shall include the anticipated effects of the construction on the coastal system and marine turtles. Each application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision, therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell. Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) currently appears as set forth in the preceding paragraph, but without the underlining. One of the provisions in Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) that is being challenged in these cases states that the Department shall: [d]eny any application for an activity which either individually or cumulatively would result in a significant adverse impact including potential cumulative effects. In assessing the cumulative effects of a proposed activity, the Department shall consider the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other similar activities already permitted or for which a permit application is pending within the same fixed coastal cell. The impact assessment shall include the anticipated effects of the construction on the coastal system and marine turtles. This provision was first added to Rule 62B-33.005 in 1996. It was amended on August 27, 2000. The other provision in Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) that is being challenged in these cases is the requirement that: [e]ach application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision, therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell. This provision was first added to Rule 62B-33.005 in 1996. Rule 62B-33.005 is intended by the Department to implement Section 161.053(5)(a)3., Florida Statutes. Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) reflects the Department’s construction of the phrase “potential cumulative effects of any proposed structures or activities,” as that phrase appears in Section 161.053(5)(a)3., Florida Statutes. Petitioners disagree with the Department’s construction of the statute. Rule 62B-41.002 was first developed on August 23, 1992, as part of the newly enacted Rule Chapter 16B-41, which was later designated as Rule Chapter 62B-41. Rule 62B-41.002(28), first developed in 1992, is the precursor to Rules 62B-41.002(19)(a) and (b), which were added on October 23, 2001. Rule 62B-41.002 is intended by the Department to implement Section 161.041, Florida Statutes. Rule 62B-41.002(19)(b) reflects the Department’s construction of the phrase “potential cumulative effects of any proposed structures or activities,” as that phrase appears in Section 161.041(2)(c), Florida Statutes. Petitioners disagree with the Department’s construction of the Statute. The current language of Section 161.041(2), Florida Statutes, was adopted by the Legislature in 1987, as follows: The department may authorize an excavation or erection of a structure at any coastal location upon receipt of an application from a property or riparian owner and upon consideration of facts and circumstances, including: Adequate engineering data concerning inlet and shoreline stability and storm tides related to shoreline topography; Design features of the proposed structures or activities; and Potential impacts of the location of such structures or activities, including potential cumulative effects of any proposed structures or activities upon such beach- dune system or coastal inlet, which, in the opinion of the department, clearly justify such a permit. Rule 62B-41.002(19) was amended to its current form in 2001, as follows: Renumbered as (19) * * * “Adverse Impacts” are those impacts to the active portion of the coastal system resulting from coastal construction. Such impacts are caused by coastal construction which has a reasonable potential of causing a measurable interference with the natural functioning of the coastal system. The active portion of the coastal system extends offshore to the seaward limit of sediment transport and includes ebb tidal shoals and offshore bars. "Cumulative Impacts" are impacts resulting from the short-term and long-term impacts and the direct and indirect impacts the activity would cause in combination with existing structures in the area and any other similar activities already permitted or for which a permit application is pending within the same fixed coastal cell. The impact assessment shall include the anticipated effects of the construction on the coastal system and marine turtles. Each application shall be evaluated on its own merits in making a permit decision, therefore, a decision by the Department to grant a permit shall not constitute a commitment to permit additional similar construction within the same fixed coastal cell individual coastal construction which, if permitted as a general practice on other coastal properties in the same general area, or if added to the adverse impacts from existing coastal construction are expected to result in an adverse impact. The scope of the "cumulative impact" review under the Environmental Resource Permit (ERP) program is described in the “Basis of Review” used by the South Florida Water Management District, St. Johns River Water Management District, and Southwest Florida Water Management. Under the “Basis of Review,” cumulative impacts are considered unacceptable when the proposed system, considered in conjunction with the past, present, and future activities, would result in a violation of state water quality standards or significant adverse impacts to functions of wetlands or other surface waters. The cumulative impact evaluation is conducted using an assumption that reasonably expected future applications with like impacts will be sought, thus necessitating equitable distribution of acceptable impacts among future applications. In reviewing impacts of a current ERP project application, the agency will review impacts from pending projects and extrapolate from those impacts to see what impacts future projects could contribute, using objective criteria, such as comprehensive plans, plats on file with local governments, or applicable land use restrictions and regulations. Tony McNeal, the administrator of the Department’s CCCL permitting program, acknowledged in his deposition testimony that the last sentence of Rule 62B-33.005(3)(a) “is a way of saying that the Department is not going to be bound by its prior actions in similar cases.” However, he also explained that the sentence does not allow the Department to act inconsistently because the Department “consistently applies the same rules” to each project that comes before it and “[t]he only thing that changes are the facts surrounding the project.”
The Issue The issue is whether to approve the Department of Transportation's (DOT's) application for a 50-year Sovereign Submerged Lands Public Easement (easement) to replace an existing bridge over a channel that connects Little Lake Worth (Lake) and Lake Worth Lagoon (Lagoon) in Palm Beach County (County), Florida.
Findings Of Fact Background On February 24, 2010, DOT filed with the District applications for an ERP and a 50-year easement on approximately 0.54 acres of submerged lands. The purpose of these filings was to obtain regulatory and proprietary authority to replace the existing Little Lake Worth Bridge (bridge) due to structural deficiencies noted during inspections performed in 2006. Because of "serious deterioration of the concrete slab and reinforcing steel," the bridge is under weight restrictions until construction is completed. See DOT Exhibit 5. An easement is required for road and bridge crossings and rights-of-way which are located on or over submerged lands. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.005(1)(e)2. Because DOT did not have an easement for the existing bridge, it was required to obtain one for the replacement work. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 40E-400.215(5). Under an operating agreement with the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the District has the responsibility of processing applications to use submerged lands for roadway projects. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 62-113.100. First constructed in 1965, the existing bridge has three spans, is 60 feet long, has two lanes (one in each direction), and crosses a channel (or canal) that connects the Lagoon to the south and the Lake to the north. The bridge is located in an unincorporated part of the County east of the City of Palm Beach Gardens and north of the Village of North Palm Beach. Highway A1A (also known as Jack Nicklaus Drive) is the roadway that crosses the bridge. Although the ERP application was challenged by Petitioners, their Petition was dismissed as being legally insufficient, and a Final Order approving the application was issued by the District on June 9, 2010. See Joint Ex. 1 and Respondents' Joint Ex. 1. No appeal of that action was taken. Petitioners did not contest the application for an easement at the District level. The District staff initially determined that it could process the application for an easement under the authority of rule 18-21.0051(2). However, on July 28, 2010, the District sent a memorandum to DEP's Office of Cabinet Affairs requesting a determination on whether the project was one of heightened public concern. See Respondents' Joint Ex. 2. After further review by the DEP's Deputy Secretary of Land and Recreation, the project was determined to be one of heightened public concern because of considerable public interest; therefore, the decision to issue an easement was made by the Board, rather than the District. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.0051(4). On November 9, 2010, the Governor and Cabinet, sitting in their capacity as the Board, conducted a public hearing on the application for an easement. Notice of the meeting was provided to persons expressing an interest in the matter. Prior to the meeting, the District and Board staffs submitted a favorable recommendation on the application, together with supporting backup information, including a report from the FFWCC concerning impacts on manatees and a seagrass study conducted by an outside consulting firm. See Respondents' Joint Ex. 3, 6, and 7. At the meeting, a District representative, Anita R. Bain, described the purpose of the application, how the issues raised by Petitioners were addressed, and the bases for the staff's recommendation that the application be approved. See Joint Ex. 3, pp. 96-101. The DOT Assistant Secretary for Engineering and Operations also described the new bridge's design and technical aspects. Id. at pp. 102-106. The Board then heard oral comments from both proponents and opponents of the project. Id. at pp. 106-154. Petitioners and their counsel were among the speakers. No speaker was under oath or subject to cross-examination. At the conclusion of the brief hearing, the Board voted 3-1 to approve the easement. The decision is memorialized in a Notice of Board Action dated November 15, 2010. See Respondents' Joint Ex. 4. Consistent with long- standing practice, a written point of entry to contest, or notice of right to appeal, the decision was not given to any person. Throughout this proceeding, the Board and DOT have contended that the Board's decision on November 9, 2010, is proprietary in nature and not subject to a chapter 120 hearing. They assert that Petitioners' only administrative remedy, if any, and now expired, is an appeal of the Board's decision to the district court of appeal under section 120.68. Petitioners contend, however, that they are entitled to an administrative hearing to contest the decision. That issue is the subject of a pending motion to dismiss filed by the Board. However, Petitioners have obtained the remedy they were seeking from day one-- a chapter 120 hearing -- and they were afforded an opportunity to litigate all issues raised in their Amended Petition. All due process concerns have been satisfied and the issue is now moot.1 Except in one respect, Petitioners do not contest any aspect of the easement or the project and its related impacts; they only object to DOT increasing the navigational clearance of the bridge from 8.5 feet to 12.0 feet above Mean High Water (MHW). In short, the main objection driving this case is a fear that a greater number of boats, mainly larger vessels, will access the channel and Lake if the vertical clearance is raised, and disturb the peace and tranquility that has existed over the last 30 years. The Parties Mr. Thomas' property, which he purchased in 1972, is located on the east side of the channel that connects the Lake and Lagoon. The residence faces to the northwest and is around 200 feet north of the bridge and a short distance south of the entrance into the Lake. See Board Ex. 13. Mr. Thomas is not an upland owner adjacent to the project site. He has a dock, a 19 and 1/2-foot boat, and a seawall built around 25 years ago. Over the years, he has lost around two to two and one-half feet of sand on the side of the seawall facing the water due to erosion caused by wave action. He also has a small, but slowly increasing, gap between his dock and the seawall. Mr. Thomas does not fish, but he enjoys watching fish and wildlife in the area, water-skiing with his family on the Lake, and swimming in the channel. He noted that around 75 percent of boaters traversing the channel observe reasonable speed limits, but the other 25 percent operate their vessels at speeds up to 50 miles per hour. Mr. Thomas fears an increase in the clearance will result in more boat traffic (attributable in part to Lake residents who have a dock but no boat and would now purchase one), and larger boats for some Lake residents who now own smaller vessels. He asserts that this will result in more wave impact on his seawall, adversely affect the natural resources in the area, and impact his rights of fishing, swimming, water skiing, and view in the channel and Lake. Around 30 years ago, John A. Tory (now deceased) purchased waterfront property in Lost Tree Village, a residential development that surrounds part of the Lake. The residence lies around one-half the way up the eastern shore of the Lake. Thus, the property is not directly adjacent to the project. The property has a dock and concrete seawall, which has been repaired periodically due to erosion. Mr. Tory did not own a boat. His widow, who is not a party and jointly owned the home with her late husband, still occupies the residence during the winter months. John H. Tory, the son of John A. Tory, stated that he is involved in the case as a representative of his father's estate, rather than on his own behalf as a property owner on the Lake. He owns waterfront property in Lost Tree Village located on a small lagoon immediately north of the main body of water comprising the Lake, or around 2,000 feet north of the bridge. During the winter months, Mr. Tory has observed manatees in the small lagoon, but not the Lake. Mr. Tory acknowledged that the new bridge will not affect ingress or egress to his late father's home. However, he fears that if the bridge clearance is raised to 12 feet, it will result in more boat traffic on the Lake, larger boats, and the presence of live-aboards, who now anchor in the Lagoon. He asserts that these conditions will disturb the peace and tranquility on the Lake, cause the fish and wildlife to leave, and impact the safety of his children and grandchildren who occasionally swim in the Lake. The DOT is a state agency having the responsibility to build roads and bridges throughout the State. It applied for the easement that is the subject of this case. There is no dispute that DOT has sufficient upland interest necessary to obtain an easement. The Board is vested with title to all sovereignty submerged lands, including the submerged real property in the channel. The Project The new bridge will be 90 feet in length with a vertical clearance of 12 feet above MHW. It will be constructed in the footprint of the existing structure. The replacement bridge will continue to be two lanes and has a design service life of 75 years. The new bridge will expand the vehicle lane widths from 10 to 12 feet, expand the road shoulder from six to eight feet, and expand the sidewalks from four to six and one- half feet in width. Both the horizontal and vertical navigational clearances will be increased. It is undisputed that by increasing the horizontal clearance, navigational safety will be improved. Also, by increasing the vertical clearance, a boater's focus will be redirected from the low clearance to the water, the proximity of the pilings, approaching vessels, and other potential hazards. In conformance with DOT design requirements, the vertical navigational clearance will be raised from 8.5 feet to 12 feet above MHW. The DOT's Plans Preparation Manual and Structures Design Guidelines both provide that for concrete superstructures over highly corrosive waters due to chloride content, the minimum vertical clearance should be 12 feet above MHW. See DOT Ex. 7 and 8. This amount of clearance is necessary to ensure bridge longevity in aggressive saltwater marine environments. Therefore, a 12-foot clearance is appropriate. Also, the new height is calculated to give the bridge a 75-year lifespan; in contrast, a bridge with an eight- foot clearance would have a shorter lifespan. Except for bridges with unique limiting conditions, all bridges in the County are now being constructed at the 12-foot height. All work will be performed without the necessity for large cranes or barges to pile-drive from the water. Essentially all work will be done from the land adjacent to the bridge. However, small vessels will be needed to put construction workers on the water while the crane is being operated from land. A $3.3 million design-build contract was executed by DOT and The Murphy Construction Company in May 2009, and the contractor is awaiting the outcome of this proceeding before commencing work. Given the size and scope of work, the project is considered a "minor" bridge project. DOT is required to implement Standard Manatee Conditions for In-Water Work during construction of the bridge. Pursuant to these conditions, DOT is required to train personnel who will be at the job site to identify manatees and log when they are seen in the area. Signage will be placed at the bridge construction site and on any equipment in the water warning about hazards to manatees. If a manatee is found in the vicinity, work must cease to allow the manatee to safely traverse the construction zone and not be trapped in the turbidity curtains. Best management practices for environmental impacts will be required during construction. No dredging or excavation of the channel is planned, and blasting will not be allowed during construction. Although there are 0.12 acres of mangroves within the boundaries of the submerged lands, the project was redesigned to completely avoid direct mangrove impacts. Except for one four-square-meter patch of seagrass (Turtle grass) located a little more than 200 feet southeast of the project site, no seagrasses are located in or adjacent to the project site. The new 12-foot height will accommodate a 100-year storm surge event at this location. The Lake and Lagoon The Lagoon stretches some 20 miles from the bridge southward to a point just north of the City of Boynton Beach. It averages around one-half mile in width. The Intracoastal Waterway (ICW) generally runs in a north-south direction through the middle of the Lagoon before turning to the northwest into Lake Worth Creek, around a mile south of the bridge. The Lagoon is divided into three segments: north, central, and south. The north segment is more commonly known as the North Lake Worth Lagoon. The Lake Worth Inlet, located around five miles south of the bridge, provides an outlet from the North Lake Worth Lagoon to the deeper waters in the Atlantic Ocean. The Riviera Beach Power Plant is located on the western side of the Lagoon just south of the Lake Worth Inlet and is a warm-water refuge area for manatees during the winter months. Peanut Island, a County-owned recreational site, lies in the ICW just north of the power plant. The northern boundary of the John D. MacArthur Beach State Park (State Park) is less than a mile south of the project area on the eastern side of the Lagoon. There are extensive seagrass beds in the Lagoon mainly along the shoreline around the State Park and Peanut Island. One survey conducted in 1990 indicated there are 2,100 acres of seagrass in the Lagoon. See Petitioners' Ex. 15. The same study concluded that around 69 percent of all seagrasses in the County are located in the northern segment of the Lagoon. Id. The Lake is designated as a Class III water body, is around 50 acres in size, and measures no more than a half-mile in length (running north to south) and a few hundred feet wide. Although the Lake is open to the public, boat access is only through the channel since there are no boat ramps on the Lake. Several residential developments, including Lost Tree Village and Hidden Key, are located north of the bridge and surround the Lake. The Lake has no natural shorelines since seawalls have been constructed around the entire water body. Aerial photographs reflect that many of the residences facing the Lake or channel have docks, but not every dock owner has a boat. Navigation under the bridge is somewhat tricky because the water current goes in one direction while the bridge points in another direction. Also, due to the accumulation of sand just south of the bridge, the channel is shallow which requires that an operator heading north "make sort of an S-turn to take the deepest water possible to go through." By widening the bridge pilings and raising the navigational clearance, as DOT proposes to do, the tidal flow will slow down and all boats will be able to enter and depart the Lake in a safer manner. Currently, except for one cigarette-style boat in the 30-foot range, the boats on the Lake are small boats (under 30 feet in length) with outboard motors. T-top boats (those with a stationery roof) with no radar or outriggers on top could "possibly" get under the bridge, but those with sonar cannot. Also, "most" boats with large outboards that have a draft of around 18 inches can now access the Lake. At high tide, smaller vessels with in-board motors that draw three and one-half to four feet could "probably" get under the bridge, but once inside the Lake, they would be "trapped" at low tide. If the navigational clearance is raised, Petitioners' boating expert, Captain Albritton, opined that the greatest impact will not come from the general public, but from residents on the Lake who have no boat but may now buy one, or residents who will buy larger vessels. However, he could not quantify this number. He further opined that boaters who do not live on the Lake would have no reason to go there because it has no attraction. He also opined that larger boats operated by non- residents in the Lagoon will continue to either exit the Lagoon to deeper waters through the Lake Worth Inlet or continue on the ICW, which turns off to the northwest around a mile south of the bridge. If several boats operate simultaneously on the Lake, significant wave action is created because the Lake is surrounded by a seawall with no beach or shoreline to absorb or reduce the wave impact. Due to the wave action and the Lake's small size, it is highly unlikely that more than four boats could ever use the Lake at the same time. Even then, Mr. Thomas described conditions as "pretty crowded" with "choppy" water and not a pleasant experience for boaters. Likewise, Captain Albritton agreed that with only a few vessels on the Lake, the water becomes "very rough," and "safety" considerations prevent or discourage other vessels from accessing or using the Lake. Captain Albritton also agreed that it would only be speculation to assume that there would be more boating in the area after the project is completed. Mainly during the winter months, a large number of vessels anchor in the North Lake Worth Lagoon. At least 95 percent, if not more, are sailboats with a fixed keel that prevents them from navigating beneath the bridge even with a 12-foot clearance. Also, the water depth in the Lake is greater than the North Lake Worth Lagoon, and boaters prefer mooring in shallower waters. Admittedly, a few houseboats powered by outboard motors occasionally frequent North Lake Worth Lagoon, and if they tilt their motors up, it might be possible for them to navigate under the bridge with a 12-foot clearance. However, houseboats typically have a flybridge (an upper deck where the ship is steered and the captain stands) above the roof of the house and would not be able to navigate under the bridge even with a heightened clearance. There is no evidence that a houseboat or other live-aboard has ever entered the Lake. The Lake is included in the John D. MacArthur Beach State Park Greenline Overlay (Greenline Overlay), which is part of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the County's Plan. The resources within the Lake are part of the Greenline Overlay, the purpose of which is to protect conservation areas, prevent degradation of water quality, control exotic species, and protect critical habitat for manatees and threatened and endangered species. See Petitioners' Ex. 10, FLUE Obj. 5.3, p. 94. Petitioners' Objections Only direct adverse impacts within the project site must be considered by the Board before approving the easement. This is because potential secondary and cumulative impacts associated with the project were already considered by the District in the regulatory process, when the ERP was issued. Direct impacts are those that may occur within 200 feet north and south of the centerline of the bridge. A 400-foot area is appropriate as the project is considered "minor" and simply replaces an existing structure. Because of public interest in the project, however, the Board (with advice from the District, DOT, other agencies, and outside consultants) again considered the secondary, cumulative, and even speculative impacts of the project. Having determined that there were no adverse impacts of any nature, the Board concluded that the easement should be granted. Petitioners agree that neither the construction work nor the bridge itself will cause any direct impacts within the project site. However, they contend that the secondary impacts of the project will be "significant." Secondary impacts are those that occur outside the footprint of the project, but which are closely linked and causally related to the activity. Petitioners did not present any credible evidence that cumulative adverse impacts are associated with the project. Petitioners argue the project will cause secondary impacts on seagrasses, manatees, seawalls (through erosion caused by wave-action), and recreational uses such as swimming, boating, nature viewing, canoeing, and fishing. They further argue that DOT has failed to take any steps to eliminate or reduce these impacts, which could be accomplished by keeping the navigational clearance at the same height. They also contend that the project will unreasonably infringe upon their riparian rights, and that the project is inconsistent with the local comprehensive plan and State Lands Management Plan.2 Finally, they assert that the project is contrary to the public interest. These allegations implicate the following provisions in rule 18- 21.004: (1)(a) and (b);(2)(a), (b), (d), and (i); and (3)(a) and (c).3 The parties have stipulated that all other requirements for an easement have been satisfied. The allegations are based primarily, if not wholly, on the premise that a higher vertical clearance on the bridge will allow larger vessels to access the Lake and channel and increase boat traffic in the area. Impact on Seagrasses Petitioners first contend that seagrasses will be secondarily impacted by the project. Seagrasses are completely submerged grass-like plants that occur in shallow (i.e., no more than six feet of water depth) marine and estuarine waters due to light penetration. There are seven species in the State; the rarest species is Johnson's seagrass (Halophilia johnsonii), a threatened species found mainly around inlets that begin south of the Sebastian Inlet in Brevard County and continue to the northern parts of Biscayne Bay in Dade County. Unlike some seagrass species, Johnson's seagrass actually increases in areas with a higher wave energy climate. Although there may be some isolated patches of seagrasses just beyond the 200-foot area southeast of the bridge, the first significant coverage of seagrass occurs along the shallow, eastern shoreline of the North Lake Worth Lagoon, in and around the State Park and Munyon Island, an island just southeast of the State Park; both are around one-half mile south of the proposed activity. Some of these species are Johnson's seagrass. Petitioners' expert agreed that during his site inspection, he found no seagrasses until he approached the State Park. Other significant coverage is located in and around Peanut Island, which lies around five miles south of the bridge. There are no seagrasses in the Lake. The seagrass beds along the shoreline in the North Lake Worth Lagoon are "relatively stable" and wax or wane depending mainly on the water-quality conditions in the system. During heavy rainfall events, the water in adjacent canals is released and can adversely affect the water quality. Although there are no canals discharging waters into North Lake Worth Lagoon north of where the ICW deviates into Lake Worth Creek, there are numerous impervious areas near the bridge (associated with other developments) that discharge stormwater into the Lagoon south of the project site. Also, there is a canal that delivers water from upland regions into the Lagoon just south of Munyon Island. Besides heavy rain, boats operating at higher speeds can create suspended sediments and cloudy water conditions that adversely affect the seagrass. However, these impacts have occurred for years, they will continue even if the bridge clearance is not raised, and they are wholly dependent on one's operation of the watercraft. There is no competent evidence, and only speculation, that raising the navigational clearance on the bridge will lead to a greater number of boats in the Lagoon and/or cause boats to operate recklessly in or near the seagrass beds. In fact, the evidence shows that a majority of the boat traffic operates in the ICW and deeper waters of the Lagoon, and not in the shallow waters along the shoreline. DOT has given reasonable assurance that the project will not cause secondary adverse impacts to seagrasses in the Lagoon. Impact on Manatees Petitioners also contend that there will be secondary adverse impacts on manatees, again due to increased boat traffic in the area. They point out that the overall mortality rate for manatees in the County has increased nearly every year since 1974; that 39 percent of all mortalities in the County are attributed to watercraft strikes; that the North Lake Worth Lagoon provides important habitat (seagrasses) for manatees; and that manatee abundance and watercraft-related strikes are highest in that area. Based upon an analysis conducted by the FFWCC, the more persuasive evidence on this issue supports a finding that the bridge, with a heightened clearance, will not significantly increase risks to manatees. See Respondents' Joint Ex. 6. A similar conclusion was reached by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. See Respondents' Joint Ex. 17. Even if larger boats can access the channel, the probability of a boat striking a manatee will not change. It is true that manatees sometimes travel into the Lake during the winter months. However, no reported watercraft- related strikes have occurred, and only one manatee carcass (a dependent calf) has ever been found in the Lake, and that was a perinatal death unrelated to boat activity. Aerial surveys of manatees reflect that the greatest amount of manatee presence and activity is far from the project site. See Respondents' Joint Ex. 12. This is also confirmed by the fact that the primary manatee gathering area in the County is around the Riviera Beach Power Plant, which lies five miles south of the bridge. Even the County's Manatee Protection Plan has designated the northern area of the Lagoon as a preferred area for marinas and docks because of the lower incidence of manatees in that area. Finally, the evidence shows that the majority of manatees traveling north through the Lagoon turn into Lake Worth Creek one mile south of the bridge and continue northward in the ICW, rather than into the channel or Lake. Reasonable assurances have been given that the project will not result in significant secondary adverse impacts on manatees. Erosion of Seawalls Mr. Thomas points out that wave action from existing boat traffic has been contributing to erosion of his seawall for many years. He argues that if the bridge height is raised, there will be increased boat traffic, which will cause further damage to existing seawalls on the Lake and channel. Wave action is caused not only by the operation of boats entering or departing the Lake, but also by water skiers and jet skiers on the Lake itself. These activities will continue, even if the clearance is not raised. This is because non-resident skiers can easily access the Lake with the existing 8.5-foot clearance, while residents on the Lake have access from their docks. The only real limitation on these activities is the Lake's size and unsafe conditions that occur when more than one or two boats are present, and not the bridge's vertical clearance. Whether boaters will observe no-wake speeds or operate at a higher speed in the channel and Lake is open to debate. As noted earlier, there is no competent evidence, but only speculation, to support Petitioners' claim that the behavior of boaters will change, or that boats will be operated more recklessly, simply because the clearance is raised. The evidence supports a finding that the project will not have a significant impact on seawalls due to increased traffic or other related usage in the Lake and channel. Riparian Rights The riparian boundary lines of Mr. Thomas and Mr. Tory are depicted on Board Exhibits 13 and 14, respectively, and are not in dispute. Petitioners contend that increased boat traffic will unreasonably infringe upon their riparian rights of view, fishing, boating, canoeing, and swimming. They also assert that with a higher clearance, the Lake will "be very popular for live-aboards, especially in the winter months, because of its secluded nature and easy access to amenities," and this will also impact their riparian rights. They do not contend that the project will affect their right of ingress or egress or their right to wharf out (build a dock) from their upland property. Rule 18-21.004(3)(c) provides that "[a]ll structures and other activities must be designed and conducted in a manner that will not unreasonably restrict or infringe upon the riparian rights of adjacent upland riparian owners." (Emphasis added). Traditional riparian rights are generally considered to be ingress, egress, the ability to wharf out, and view. See § 253.141(1), Fla. Stat.; Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.004(3)(a). In determining whether this rule is satisfied, the Board only considers adjacent upland riparian owners who are directly adjacent to and abut the bridge and whether the proposed activities will block their ingress/egress or unreasonably restrict their rights in any other way. In this case, adjacent upland owners are not affected. Although neither Petitioner is an "adjacent upland riparian owner" within the meaning of the rule, because of the interest shown by some nearby residents, the Board also considered potential impacts on property owners in the channel and Lake, including Petitioners, to determine whether their riparian rights were unreasonably affected. In doing so, it followed the long-established principle that riparian rights are not exclusionary rights, and the public has a concurrent right with a riparian owner to fish and swim in waters owned by the State, and a right to navigate. See, e.g., The Ferry Pass Inspectors' and Shippers' Ass'n v. Whites River Inspectors' and Shippers' Ass'n, 57 Fla. 399, 48 So. 643, 645 (Fla. 1909). The more persuasive evidence shows that the activities are designed and conducted in a manner that will not unreasonably restrict or infringe upon the riparian rights of adjacent upland owners or other nearby property owners on the Lake and channel. Petitioners failed to establish that the proposed activity (or the use of the waters by members of the public) will prevent them from accessing navigable waters from their property or wharfing out. Likewise, they presented insufficient evidence to establish that the activities will adversely affect their view. A similar contention that their "recreational" rights of fishing, boating, swimming, and nature viewing will be secondarily impacted has been rejected. See Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.004(2)(a). A concern that once the project is completed, live- aboards (i.e., vessels used solely as a residence and not for navigation) will move from the Lagoon to the Lake and unreasonably infringe upon Petitioners' riparian rights is without merit. As noted above, virtually all of the live- aboards in the North Lake Worth Lagoon are sailboats, which cannot access the Lake even if the clearance is raised. Finally, the County has enacted an ordinance that prohibits live-aboards in the Lake and Loxahatchee River. See Respondents' Joint Ex. 18. Law enforcement agencies are charged with the responsibility of enforcing that ordinance. Comprehensive Plan and State Plan Although there is no specific requirement in chapter 18-21 to do so, pursuant to section 339.135 the proposed "work program" was reviewed for consistency with the County's Plan by the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), now designated as a division in the new Department of Economic Opportunity. Unless a project is inconsistent with a plan requirement, the DCA does not provide written comments. In other words, no response is an indication that the project is consistent with all local plan requirements. After reviewing the project, the DCA did not respond. Therefore, the project was deemed to be consistent with the County Plan. This information was submitted to the Board prior to its decision. See Joint Ex. 2. Rule 18-21.004(1)(i) requires that the State Plan "shall be considered and utilized in developing recommendations for all activities on submerged lands." Petitioners contend that the new bridge will violate the following policies in the State Plan: that submerged grasses be protected; and that natural conditions be maintained to allow the propagation of fish and wildlife. However, the protection of submerged grasses and natural resources was considered by the District before submitting a recommendation to the Board. To the extent this rule may apply, if at all, to the pending application, its requirements have been met. Petitioners also contend that the project is inconsistent with FLUE objective 5.3, which requires the County to maintain the Greenline Overlay in order to protect natural resources in the area. They argue that the proposed activity is inconsistent with the requirement that the greenline buffer be protected from potentially incompatible future land uses; critical habitat for wildlife, including threatened and endangered species; and manatees. See Petitioners' Ex. 10, FLUE obj. 5.3, p. 94. Petitioners cite no authority for their contention that consistency with local comprehensive plans is a requirement for approving an application to use submerged lands. Assuming arguendo that it is, the easement is not inconsistent with the above objective, as the replacement of an existing structure is not an incompatible future land use, and it will not impact seagrasses or manatees. Public Interest Rule 18-21.004(1)(a) provides that "all activities on sovereignty lands must not be contrary to the public interest." Rule 18-21.003(51) defines "public interest" as "demonstrable environmental, social, and economic benefits which would accrue to the public at large as a result of a proposed action, and which would clearly exceed all demonstrable environmental, social, and economic costs of the proposed action." The same rule requires that in determining public interest, the Board "shall consider the ultimate project and purpose to be served by said use . . . of lands or materials." Although Petitioners agree that the project is for a public purpose, they contend that DOT failed to demonstrate that the project creates a net public benefit, and therefore it does not meet the public interest test. However, the so-called "net public benefit" standard relied upon by Petitioners appears to be derived from rule 18-21.004(4)(b)2.e., which applies to the use of submerged lands for private residential multi-family docks, and not public easements. In any event, the project has a number of positive attributes that militate against finding that it is contrary to the public interest. Until the project is completed, the bridge is structurally deficient and it presents a serious safety concern to the public. Although the bridge height will be increased, with the slopes being provided over a greater distance, the view of oncoming traffic across the bridge is better and safety will be improved for motorists. Increasing the bridge height will also improve navigation for boaters entering or departing the Lake. DOT is using a preferential engineering design, which will increase the lifespan of the bridge to 75 years. The new design will provide for a slower velocity of water flow through the channel, which means an easier and safer route for boaters traversing the channel. Currently, almost all vessels (except a few small ones transported on trailers) operated by the Palm Beach County Sheriff's Office and the FFWCC are unable to access the Lake in the event of an emergency due to emergency lights, antenna, and sonar equipment mounted on the roofs of their vessels. This prevents them from responding to incidents that may occur on the Lake, including serious crimes, accidents, fires on board vessels, manatee rescues, and other related enforcement matters. Representatives of both agencies indicated that with a 12-foot clearance, their vessels will be able to access the Lake. Petitioners argue, however, that in the event of an emergency they would call a security officer for Lost Tree Village. But public comment by a security officer for that development indicated that security personnel only patrol three to five hours per day, they are not sworn law enforcement officers, they do not have arrest authority, and they could not undertake rescues if more than two persons were injured. Collectively, these considerations support a finding that the proposed activities on sovereignty submerged lands are not contrary to the public interest. Mitigation and Avoidance Rule 18-21.004(2)(b) provides in part that if the activities will result in "significant adverse impacts to sovereignty lands and associated resources," the application should not be approved "unless there is no reasonable alternative and adequate mitigation is proposed." See also Fla. Admin. Code R. 18-21.004(7). Petitioners argue that in order to avoid significant adverse impacts, a reasonable alternative is to add a nonstructural horizontal member to the bridge in order to retain the existing clearance of 8.5 feet. There are no significant direct, secondary, or cumulative adverse impacts to the submerged lands or natural resources associated with the bridge or its construction. Therefore, the Board is not required to consider design modifications. Moreover, no bridges have ever been constructed in the manner suggested by Petitioners, and no design criteria currently exist for the implementation of such a nonstructural element on a bridge. A permanent member would cause the same concerns as having a lower bridge because it would be susceptible to the aggressive water environment that could impact the life of the Bridge. If a non-permanent member were attached to the Bridge, it would require periodic maintenance and evaluation. Either type of control would present engineering liability concerns, as well as a hazard to approaching boaters who might not be able to discern that the clearance is 8.5 feet when the bridge itself is 12.0 feet above MHW. DOT does not have any design guidelines, standards, or specifications for warnings, signage, or advanced notification to boaters regarding navigation restrictions. In short, such a restriction would be contrary to the public interest because of maintenance, safety, and liability issues that may arise. The elimination and reduction of impacts is not required.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Board of Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund issue a final order approving DOT's application for a 50-year easement to use Sovereign Submerged Lands to replace the Little Lake Worth Bridge in Palm Beach County. DONE AND ENTERED this 9th day of August, 2011, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S D. R. ALEXANDER Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 9th day of August, 2011.
The Issue This hearing officer appeal under Section 4-505 of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code (Code) is the second of two administrative appeals available to and taken by Appellant, Deborah Groen Sobeleski (Sobeleski) under the Code. The issue in this second appeal is whether to sustain the decision of the City of Clearwater Community Development Board (CDB). The CDB's decision, made under Section 4-504 of the Code, was to allow Sobeleski's earlier Application for Administrative Appeal to the CDB from a Development Order (DO) issued by the City of Clearwater Community Development Coordinator (CDC) to remain on the CDB's consent agenda, which had the effect of denying the Application for Administrative Appeal and confirming the CDC's DO without a quasi-judicial hearing for receipt of additional evidence. The CDC's DO granted, with conditions, the Flexible Standard Development Application filed by Appellee, Christopher Mariani (Mariani, or Applicant), and subsequently amended, for a deviation to allow construction of a dock exceeding the 60-foot maximum length otherwise allowed by the Code.
Findings Of Fact On January 18, 2002, Appellee, Christopher C. Mariani (Mariani, or Applicant), filed a Flexible Standard Development Application for a deviation from Section 3-601.C.1.b.2 of the City of Clearwater Community Development Code (the Code) to allow construction of a 101-foot long dock (98 feet in length with a 3-foot step-down) where 60 feet would be the maximum otherwise allowed by the Code. The deviation from Code apparently was requested because a Pinellas County Department of Environmental Management Water and Navigation Report dated November 26, 2001, stated: Seagrass beds are located along this entire property, and extend out to a maximum of 65 ft. from the seawall in the area of the proposed dock although it becomes sparse at approximately 60 ft. It is the policy of this Department to limit structures over seagrasses to 4 ft. in width and to place the terminal platforms and boat slips beyond the limits of the seagrasses wherever possible. At the time the application was filed, Section 4-505 of the Code provided that, in an appeal to a hearing officer from a decision of the City of Clearwater Community Development Board (CDB), the record before the CDB could be "supplemented by such additional evidence as may be brought forward during the hearing"; and the appellant's burden was to show that the CDB's decision could not be "sustained by the evidence before the board and before the hearing officer." The "City of Clearwater Planning Department Staff Report for 2/14/02 DRC Meeting" recommended flexible standard development approval for a 92-foot long dock.3 The stated "Bases for approval" were: compliance with the flexible standard development criteria under Section 3-601.C.1.g.4 of the Code; compliance with the general applicability criteria under Section 3-913 of the Code; and compatibility with the surrounding area. The Staff Report noted: (1) "there are no navigational concerns with the proposed development"; and (2) "the proposal is more environmentally sensitive than the existing5 dock and constitute an improvement over existing conditions." The Report also stated that, since only one of the three criteria in Section 3- 601.C.1.g. need be met, similarity to surrounding dock patterns was not applicable but that "the proposed dock, as amended, will be similar to surrounding dock patterns." By letter dated March 5, 2002, Mariani amended his application to: decrease the length of the proposed dock to 95 feet; reduce the roof length over the larger capacity boat lift from 48 feet to 38 feet (to match the roof length over the smaller capacity lift); and reduce the total dock square footage to 476.25 square feet versus the 498 feet previously requested. On or about April 14, 2002, Mariani submitted to the City a set of "Dock Plans" for a 92-foot long dock.6 The document included "Diagram A Permittable Construction" and "Diagram B Proposed Construction." The apparent purpose was to contrast the dock Mariani would have been permitted to build in the absence of seagrasses with his proposed dock.7 On May 2, 2002, Section 4-505 of the Code was amended to provide that the appeal hearing before a hearing officer consists solely of reception of the record before the CDB and oral argument and that the burden on appeal to the hearing officer is for "the appellant to show that the decision of the [CDB] cannot be sustained by the evidence before the [CDB], or that the decision of the [CDB] departs from the essential requirements of law." Under the amendment, no other evidence is to be considered.8 By letter dated July 22, 2002, the CDC9 issued a DO stating concurrence with the DRC's "findings." Except for this reference, the record-on-appeal does not contain any evidence of the DRC's recommendation or any written findings by the DRC.10 But the CDC approved Mariani's application, as amended, upon the same "Bases for approval" contained in the "City of Clearwater Planning Department Staff Report for 2/14/02 DRC Meeting," with the following conditions: That a building permit for the proposed dock only be issued concurrently with, or subsequent to, building permit issuance for a principal, residential structure on the site; That the proposed dock be relocated farther east (with the dock head centered on the midpoint of the waterfront property line, as measured at the seawall) and constructed perpendicular to the waterfront property line; That the relocation of the dock meet all criteria under Section 3-601.C.1; and That revised plans reflecting conformance with condition #2 be submitted with the building permit application, to the satisfaction of staff. The DO then stated: "The approval is based on and must adhere to the site plan dated received April 15, 2002, or as modified by condition #2."11 On July 26, 2002, Sobeleski filed an Application for Administrative Appeal to the CDB from the CDC's decision. It included numerous exhibits. It appears that not all of the Application for Administrative Appeal and attachments were presented to the CDB for its consideration on August 20, 2002. One attachment was a letter dated March 27, 2002, from Sobeleski's attorney to the CDC and the City's Land Planner. This letter had 15 exhibits attached, but the CDC removed Exhibits 9-15 from the version of the letter presented to the CDB for its consideration. However, the letter stated that Exhibits 10-15 were attached for "ease of review," and the CDC separately presented copies of the documents contained in Exhibits 12-15 for the CDB's consideration. As for the other exhibits removed from the letter, Exhibit 9 was a computer diskette containing the photographs that were presented to the CDB for its consideration as Exhibits 1-8. Exhibit 10 was a letter dated March 6, 2002, from individuals named Blum to the City Planner stating no objection to the proposed dock. Exhibit 11 was a letter dated March 7, 2002, from Mariani to the CDC responding to opposition from Sobeleski and another individual to the proposed dock. While Exhibit 11 apparently was not presented to the CDB for its consideration, it clearly was adverse to Sobeleski's position and was addressed at length in the letter from Sobeleski's attorney dated March 27, 2002. In On August 20, 2002, the CDB considered the documents described in the immediately preceding Finding, together with a "City of Clearwater Planning Department Summary of Events," dated August 20, 2002, as well as oral presentations by the CDC, counsel for Sobeleski, and counsel for Mariani. The audiotape- recording of the oral presentations reveals that, upon the advice of the CDC and the Assistant City Attorney, the CDB attempted to limit the oral presentations to the question whether the CDB should remove Sobeleski's Application for Administrative Appeal from the CDB's consent agenda so as to cause a quasi-judicial hearing to be conducted, or should leave it on the consent agenda, which would result in upholding the CDC's decision. After being restricted by the CDB from addressing the merits, counsel for Sobeleski argued for a quasi- judicial hearing for reasons of "public policy." The CDB then allowed counsel for Mariani to address the merits in arguing that Sobeleski had made no showing as to why the CDC decision was incorrect so as to justify a quasi-judicial hearing.12 The Assistant City Attorney concurred that some such showing should be necessary to justify removal from the consent agenda. After the oral presentations, the CDB voted to leave Sobeleski's Application for Administrative Appeal on the CDB's consent agenda, thereby upholding the CDC's decision to issue the DO. On August 26, 2002, Sobeleski filed an Appeal Application from the CDB's decision. On September 20, 2002, the City referred the Appeal Application to DOAH under Section 4-505 of the Code. However, the referral letter from counsel for the City stated: Please note that I am not forwarding Exhibits 1-15 to the Appeal Application. Items 1-9 and 12-15 are already of record before the Board and are thus otherwise included. Items 10 and 11 were not of record below and are not being included, on that basis. Although the manner in which the record-on-appeal was prepared made it exceedingly difficult to ascertain, it appears that the referral actually failed to forward the entirety of Exhibit B to the Appeal Application, which consisted of letters from Appellant's counsel dated August 16 and March 27, 2002.13 The documents called "Exhibits" or "Items" in the referral letter actually were Exhibits 1-15 attached to the letter from Appellant's counsel dated March 27, 2002. As previously found, the CDC decided not to present to the CDB all attachments to the letter dated March 27, 2002. See Finding 9, supra. For that reason, the Assistant City Attorney "redacted" the Appeal Application by deleting the items not in fact presented (Exhibits 9, 10, and 11), as well as the items identical to documents separately presented (Exhibits 12-15), to the CDB for its consideration. See Finding 11, supra.14
The Issue The issue before the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission (FLWAC) in this proceeding is whether the Petition to Establish the Three Creeks Community Development District (Petition) meets the criteria set forth in Chapter 190, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 42-1, Florida Administrative Code. The local public hearing was for the purpose of gathering information in anticipation of quasi-legislative rulemaking by FLWAC.
The Issue The issues in these cases are whether the Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA or Agency) should discipline (including license revocation) Bayou Shores SNF, LLC, d/b/a Rehabilitation Center of St. Pete (Bayou Shores) for the statutory and rule violations alleged in the June 10, 2014, Administrative Complaint, and whether AHCA should renew the nursing home license held by Bayou Shores.
Findings Of Fact Bayou Shores is a 159-bed licensed nursing facility under the licensing authority of AHCA, located in Saint Petersburg, Florida. Bayou Shores was at all times material hereto required to comply with all applicable rules and statutes. Bayou Shores was built in the 1960s as a psychiatric hospital. In addition to long-term and short-term rehabilitation residents, Bayou Shores continues to treat psychiatric residents and other mental health residents. AHCA is the state regulatory authority responsible for licensure of nursing homes and enforcement of applicable federal regulations, state statutes, and rules governing skilled nursing facilities, pursuant to the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1987, Title IV, Subtitle C (as amended) chapters 400, Part II, and 408, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Florida Administrative Code Chapter 59A-4. AHCA is responsible for conducting nursing homes surveys to determine compliance with Florida statutes and rules. AHCA completed surveys of Bayou Shores’ nursing home facility on or about February 10, 2014;5/ March 20, 2014; and July 11, 2014. Surveys may be classified as annual inspections or complaint investigations. Pursuant to section 400.23(8), Florida Statutes, AHCA must classify deficiencies according to their nature and scope when the criteria established under section 400.23(2) are not met. The classification of the deficiencies determines whether the licensure status of a nursing home is "standard" or "conditional" and the amount of the administrative fine that may be imposed, if any. AHCA surveyors cited deficiencies during the three surveys listed above (paragraph 4). Prior to the alleged events that prompted AHCA’s actions, Bayou Shores had promulgated policies or procedures for its operation. Specifically, Bayou Shores had policies or procedures in place governing: (Resident) code status, involving specific life-saving responses (regarding what services would be provided when or if an untoward event occurred, including a resident’s end of life decision); Abuse, neglect, exploitation, misappropriation of property; and Elopements. CODE STATUS Bayou Shores’ policy on code status orders and the response provided, in pertinent part, the following: Each resident will have the elected code status documented in their medical record within the Physician’s orders & on the state specific Advanced Directives form kept in the Advanced Directives section of the medical record. Bayou Shores’ procedure on code status orders and the response also provided that the “Physician & or Social Services/Clinical Team” would discuss with a “resident/patient or authorized responsible party” their wishes regarding a code status as it related to their current clinical condition. This discussion was to include an explanation of the term “'Do Not Resuscitate’ (DNR) and/or ‘Full Code.’” Bayou Shores personnel were to obtain a written order signed by the physician indicating which response the resident (or their legal representative) selected. In the event a resident was found unresponsive, the procedure provided for the following staff response: 3 Response: Upon finding a resident/patient unresponsive, call for help. Evaluate for heartbeat, respirations, & pulse. The respondent to the call for help will immediately overhead page a “CODE BLUE” & indicate the room number, or the location of the resident/patient & deliver the Medical Record & Emergency Cart to the location of the CODE BLUE. If heartbeat, respirations, & pulse cannot be identified, promptly verify Code Status - Respondent verifies Code Status by review of the resident’s/patient’s Medical Record. If Code Status is “DNR” – DO NOT initiate CPR (Notify Physician, Supervisor & Family). If Code Status includes CPR & respondent is CPR certified, BEGIN Cardio Pulmonary Resuscitation. If respondent is not CPR certified, STAY with the RESIDENT/PATIENT – Continue to summon assistance. The first CPR certified responder will initiate CPR. If code status is not designated, the resident is a FULL CODE & CPR will be initiated. A scribe will be designated to record activity related to the Code Blue using the “Code Blue Worksheet.” The certified respondent will continue CPR until: Relieved by EMS, relieved by another CPR certified respondent, &/or Physician orders to discontinue CPR. A staff member will be designated to notify the following person(s) upon initiation of CPR. EMS (911) Physician Family/Legal Representative * * * 5) Review DNR orders monthly & with change in condition and renew by Physician’s signature on monthly orders. (Emphasis supplied). Bayou Shores’ “Do Not Resuscitate Order” policy statement provides: Our facility will not use cardiopulmonary resuscitation and related emergency measures to maintain life functions on a resident when there is a Do Not Resuscitate Order in effect. Further, the DNR policy interpretation provides: Do not resuscitate order must be signed by the resident’s Attending Physician on the physician’s order sheet maintained in the resident’s medical record. A Do Not Resuscitate Order (DNRO) form must be completed and signed by the Attending Physician and resident (or resident’s legal surrogate, as permitted by State law) and placed in the front of the resident’s medical record. (Note: Use only State approved DNRO forms. If no State form is required use facility approved form.) Should the resident be transferred to the hospital, a photocopy of the DNRO form must be provided to the EMT personnel transporting the resident to the hospital. Do not resuscitate orders (DNRO) will remain in effect until the resident (or legal surrogate) provides the facility with a signed and dated request to end the DNR order. (Note: Verbal orders to cease the DNRO will be permitted when two (2) staff members witness such request. Both witnesses must have heard and both individuals must document such information on the physician’s order sheet. The Attending Physician must be informed of the resident’s request to cease the DNR order.) The Interdisciplinary Care Planning Team will review advance directives with the resident during quarterly care planning sessions to determine if the resident wishes to make changes in such directives. Inquiries concerning do not resuscitate orders/requests should be referred to the Administrator, Director of Nursing Services, or to the Social Services Director. Bayou Shores’ advance directives policy statement provides: “Advance Directives will be respected in accordance with state law and facility policy.” In pertinent part, the Advance Directives policy interpretation and implementation provides: * * * Information about whether or not the resident has executed an advance directive shall be displayed prominently in the medical record. In accordance with current OBRA definitions and guidelines governing advance directives, our facility has defined advanced directives as preferences regarding treatment options and include, but are not limited to: * * * b. Do Not Resuscitate – Indicates that, in case of respiratory or cardia failure, the resident, legal guardian, health care proxy, or representative (sponsor) has directed that no cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) or other life-saving methods are to be used. * * * Changes or revocations of a directive must be submitted in writing to the Administrator. The Administrator may require new documents if changes are extensive. The Care Plan Team will be informed of such changes and/or revocations so that appropriate changes can be made in the resident assessment (MDS) and care plan. The Director of Nursing Services or designee will notify the Attending Physician of advance directives so that appropriate orders can be documented in the resident’s medical record and plan of care. (Emphasis supplied). A DNR order is an advance directive signed by a physician that nursing homes are required to honor. The DNR order is on a state-mandated form that is yellow/gold (“goldenrod”) in color. The DNR order is the only goldenrod form in a resident’s medical record/chart.6/ The medical record itself is kept at the nursing station. DNR Orders should be prominently placed in a resident’s medical record for easy access. When a resident is experiencing a life-threatening event, care-givers do not have the luxury of time to search a medical record or chart to determine whether the resident has a DNR order or not. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation should be started as soon as possible, provided the resident did not have a DNR order. Bayou Shores had a policy and procedure regarding DNR orders and the implementation of CPR in place prior to the February 2014 survey. The policy and procedure required that DNR orders be honored, and that each resident with a DNR order have the DNR order on the state-mandated goldenrod form in the "Advanced Directives" section of the resident’s medical record. ABUSE, NEGLECT, EXPLOTATION, AND MISAPPROPRIATION OF PROPERTY PREVENTION, PROTECTION AND RESPONSE POLICY AND PROCEDURES Bayou Shores’ “Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, and Misappropriation of Property Prevention, Protection and Response” policy provided in pertinent part: Abuse, Neglect, Exploitation, and Misappropriation of Property, collectively known and referred to as ANE and as hereafter defined, will not be tolerated by anyone, including staff, patients, volunteers, family members or legal guardians, friends or any other individuals. The health center Administrator is responsible for assuring that patient safety, including freedom from risk of ANE, hold the highest priority. (Emphasis supplied). Bayou Shores’ definition of sexual abuse included the following: Sexual Abuse: includes but is not limited to, sexual harassment, sexual coercion, or sexual assault. (Emphasis supplied). Bayou Shores’ ANE prevention issues policies included in pertinent part: The center will provide supervision and support services designed to reduce the likelihood of abusive behaviors. Patients with needs and behaviors that might lead to conflict with staff or other patients will be identified by the Care Planning team, with interventions and follow through designed to minimize the risk of conflict. Bayou Shores’ procedure for prevention issues involving residents identified as having behaviors that might lead to conflict included, in part, the following: patients with a history of aggressive behaviors, patients who enter other residents rooms while wandering. * * * e. patients who require heavy nursing care or are totally dependent on nursing care will be considered as potential victims of abuse. Bayou Shores’ interventions designed to meet the needs of those residents identified as having behaviors that might lead to conflict included, in part: Identification of patients whose personal histories render them at risk for abusing other patients or staff, assessment of appropriate intervention strategies to prevent occurrences, Bayou Shores’ policy regarding ANE identification issues included the following: Any patient event that is reported to any staff by patient, family, other staff or any other person will be considered as possible ANE if it meets any of the following criteria: * * * f. Any complaint of sexual harassment, sexual coercion, or sexual assault. (Emphasis supplied). Bayou Shores’ ANE procedure included the following: Any and all staff observing or hearing about such events will report the event immediately to the ABUSE HOTLINE AT 1-800-962-2873. The event will also be reported immediately to the immediate supervisor, AND AT LEAST ONE OF THE FOLLOWING INDIDUALS, Social Worker (ANE Prevention Coordinator), Director of Nursing, or Administrator. Any and all employees are empowered to initiate immediate action as appropriate. (Emphasis supplied). Bayou Shores’ policies regarding ANE investigative issues provided the following: Any employee having either direct or indirect knowledge of any event that might constitute abuse must report the event promptly. * * * All events reported as possible ANE will be investigated to determine whether ANE did or did not take Place [sic]. Bayou Shores’ procedures regarding ANE investigative issues included the following: Any and all staff observing or hearing about such events must report the event immediately to the ANE Prevention Coordinator or Administrator. The event should also be reported immediately to the employee’s supervisor. All employees are encouraged and empowered to contact the ABUSE HOTLINE AT 1-800-962-2873. [sic] if they witness such event or have reasonable cause to suspect such an event has indeed occurred. THE ANE PREVENTION COORDINATOR will initiate investigative action. The Administrator of the center, the Director of Nurses and/or the Social Worker (ANE PREVENTION COORDINATOR) will be notified of the complaint and action being taken as soon as practicable. (Emphasis supplied). Bayou Shores’ policy regarding ANE reporting and response issues included the following: All allegations of possible ANE will be immediately reported to the Abuse Hotline and will be assessed to determine the direction of the investigation. Bayou Shores’ procedures regarding ANE reporting and response issues included the following: Any investigation of alleged abuse, neglect, or exploitation will be reported immediately to the Administrator and/or the ANE coordinator. It will also be reported to other officials, in accordance with State and Federal Law. THE IMMEDIATE REPORT All allegations of abuse, neglect, . . . must be reported immediately. This allegation must be reported to the Abuse Hotline (Adult Protective Services) within twenty-four hours whenever an allegation is made. The ANE Prevention Coordinator will also submit The Agency for Health Care Administration AHCA Federal Immediate/5-Day Report and send it to: Complaint Administration Unit Phone: 850-488-5514Fax: 850-488-6094 E-Mail: fedrep@ahca.myflorida.com THE REPORT OF INVESTIGATION (Five Day Report): The facility ANE Prevention Coordinator will send the result of facility investigations to the State Survey Agency within five working days of the incident. This will be completed using the same AHCA Federal/Five Day Report, and sending it to the Complaint investigation Unit as noted above. DESIGNATED REPORTERS: Shall immediately make a report to the State Survey Agency, by fax, e-mail, or telephone. All necessary corrective actions depending on the result of the investigation will be taken. Report any knowledge of actions by a court of law against any employee, which would indicate an employee is unfit for service as a nurse aide or other facility staff to the State nurse aide registry or other appropriated [sic] licensing authorities. Any report to Adult Protective Services will trigger an internal investigation following the protocol of the Untoward Events Policy and Procedure. (Emphasis supplied). Bayou Shores’ abuse investigations policy statement provides the following: All reports of resident abuse, . . . shall be promptly and thoroughly investigated by facility management. Bayou Shores’ abuse investigations interpretation and implementation provides, in pertinent part, the following: Should an incident or suspected incident of resident abuse, . . . be reported, the Administrator, or his/her designee, will appoint a member of management to investigate the alleged incident. The Administrator will provide any supporting documents relative to the alleged incident to the person in charge of the investigation. The individual conducting the investigation will, as a minimum: Review the completed documentation forms; Review the resident’s medical record to determine events leading up to the incident; Interview the person(s) reporting the incident; Interview any witnesses to the incident; Interview the resident (as medically appropriate); Interview the resident’s Attending Physician as needed to determine the resident’s current level of cognitive function and medical condition; Interview staff members (on all shifts) who have had contact with the resident during the period of the allege incident; Interview the resident’s roommate, family members, and visitors; Interview other residents to whom the accused employee provides care or services; and Review all events leading up to the alleged incident. The following guidelines will be used when conducting interviews; Each interview will be conducted separately and in a private location; The purpose and confidentiality of the interview will be explained thoroughly to each person involved in the interview process; and Should a person disclose information that may be self-incriminating, that individual will be informed of his/her rights to terminate the interview until such time as his/her rights are protected (e.g., representation by legal counsel). Witness reports will be obtained in writing. Witnesses will be required to sign and date such reports. The individual in charge of the abuse investigation will notify the ombudsman that an abuse investigation is being conducted. The ombudsman will be invited to participate in the review process. Should the ombudsman decline the invitation to participate in the investigation, that information will be noted in the investigation record. The ombudsman will be notified of the results of the investigation as well as any corrective measures taken. * * * The individual in charge of the investigation will consult daily with the Administrator concerning the progress/findings of the investigation. The Administrator will keep the resident and his/her representative (sponsor) informed of the progress of the investigation. The results of the investigation will be recorded on approved documentation forms. The investigator will give a copy of the completed documentation to the Administrator within working days of the reported incident. The Administrator will inform the resident and his/her representative (sponsor) of the results of the investigation and corrective action taken within days of the completion of the investigation. The Administrator will provide a written report of the results of all abuse investigations and appropriate action taken to the state survey and certification agency, the local police department, the ombudsman, and others as may be required by state or local laws, within five (5) working days of the reported incident. Should the investigation reveal that a false report was made/filed, the investigation will cease. Residents, family members, ombudsmen, state agencies, etc., will be notified of the findings. (Note: Disciplinary actions concerning the filing of false reports by employees are outlined in our facility’s personnel policy manual.) Inquiries concerning abuse reporting and investigation should be referred to the Administrator or to the Director of Nursing Services. Bayou Shores’ reporting abuse to facility management policy statement provides the following: It is the responsibility of our employees, facility consultants, Attending Physicians, family members visitors etc., to promptly report any incident or suspected incident of . . . resident abuse . . . to facility management. Bayou Shores’ reporting abuse to facility management policy interpretation and implementation provides the following: Our facility does not condone resident abuse by anyone, including staff members, . . . other residents, friends, or other individuals. To help with recognition of incidents of abuse, the following definitions of abuse are provided: * * * c. Sexual abuse is defined as, but not limited to, sexual harassment, sexual coercion, or sexual assault. All personnel, residents, family members, visitors, etc., are encouraged to report incidents of resident abuse or suspected incidents of abuse. Such reports may be made without fear of retaliation from the facility or its staff. Employees, facility consultants and /or Attending Physicians must immediately report any suspected abuse or incidents of abuse to the Director of Nursing Services. In the absence of the Director of Nursing Services such reports may be made to the Nurse Supervisor on duty. Any individual observing an incident of resident abuse or suspecting resident abuse must immediately report such incident to the Administrator or Director of Nursing Services. The following information should be reported: The name(s) of the resident(s) to which the abuse or suspected abuse occurred; The date and time that the incident occurred; Where the incident took place; The name(s) of the person(s) allegedly committing the incident, if known; The name(s) of any witnesses to the incident; The type of abuse that was committed (i.e., verbal, physical, . . . sexual, . . .); and Any other information that may be requested by management. Any staff member or person affiliated with this facility who . . . believes that a resident has been a victim of . . . abuse, . . . shall immediately report, or cause a report to be made of, the . . . offense. Failure to report such an incident may result in legal/criminal action being filed against the individual(s) withholding such information. * * * The Administrator or Director of Nursing Services must be immediately notified of suspected abuse or incidents of abuse. If such incidents occur or are discovered after hours, the Administrator and Director of Nursing Services must be called at home or must be paged and informed of such incident. When an incident of resident abuse is suspected or confirmed, the incident must be immediately reported to facility management regardless of the time lapse since the incident occurred. Reporting procedures should be followed as outlined in this policy. Upon receiving reports of . . . sexual abuse, a licensed nurse or physician shall immediately examine the resident. Findings of the examination must be recorded in the resident’s medical record. (Note: If sexual abuse is suspected, DO NOT bathe the resident or wash the resident’s clothing or linen. Do not take items from the area in which the incident occurred. Call the police immediately.) (Emphasis supplied). C. ELOPEMENT A/K/A EXIT SEEKING Bayou Shores’ elopement policy statement provides the following: Staff shall investigate and report all cases of missing residents. Bayou Shores’ elopement policy interpretation and implementation provides the following: 1. Staff shall promptly report any resident who tries to leave the premises or is suspected of being missing to the Charge Nurse or Director of Nursing. * * * If an employee discovers that a resident is missing from the facility, he/she shall: Determine if the resident is out on an authorized leave or pass; If the resident was not authorized to leave, initiate a search of the building(s) and premises; If the resident is not located, notify the Administrator and the Director of Nursing Services, the resident’s legal representative (sponsor), the Attending Physician, law enforcement officials, and (as necessary) volunteer agencies (i.e., Emergency Management, Rescue Squads, etc.); Provide search teams with resident identification information; and Initiate an extensive search of the surrounding area. When the resident returns to the facility, the Director of Nursing Services or Charge Nurse shall: Examine the resident for injuries; Contact the Attending Physician and report findings and conditions of the resident; Notify the resident’s legal representative (sponsor); Notify search teams that the resident has been located; Complete and file an incident report; and Document relevant information in the resident’s medical record. FEBRUARY 2014 SURVEY A patient has the right to choose what kind of medical treatment he or she receives, including whether or not to be resuscitated. At Bayou Shores there may be multiple locations in a resident’s medical record for physician orders regarding a resident’s DNR status. A physician’s DNR order should be in the resident’s medical record. When a resident is transported from a facility to another health care facility, the goldenrod form is included with the transferring documentation. If there is not a DNR, a full resuscitation effort would be undertaken. In late January, early February 2014, AHCA conducted Bayou Shores’ annual re-licensure survey. During the survey, Bayou Shores identified 24 residents who selected the DNR status as their end-of-life choice. Of those 24 residents, residents numbered 35,7/ 54 and 109, did not have a completed or current “Do Not Resuscitate Order” in their medical records maintained by Bayou Shores.8/ As the medical director for Bayou Shores, Dr. Saba completed new DNR orders for patients during or following the February survey. In one instance, a particular DNR order did not have a signature of the resident or the representative of the resident, confirming the DNR status. Without that signature, the DNR order was invalid. In another instance, a verbal authorization was noted on the DNR forms, which such is not sufficient to control a DNR status. A medication administration record (MAR) is not an order; however, it should reflect orders. In one instance, a resident’s MAR reflected a full code status, when the resident had a DNR order in place. During the survey, Bayou Shores was in the midst of changing its computer systems and pharmacies. At the end of each month, orders for the upcoming month were produced by the pharmacy, and inserted into each resident’s medical record. Bayou Shores’ staff routinely reviewed each chart to ensure the accuracy of the information contained therein. Additionally, each nurse’s station was given a list of those residents who elected a DNR status over a full-code status. Conflicting critical information could have significant life or death consequences. The administration of cardio- pulmonary resuscitation (CPR) to a resident who has decided to forgo medical care could cause serious physical or psychological injuries. As the February survey progressed, and Bayou Shores was made aware of the DNR order discrepancies, staff contacted residents or residents’ legal guardians to secure signatures on DNR orders so that resident’s last wishes would be current and correct. Bayou Shores had a redundant system in place in an effort to ensure that a resident’s last wishes were honored; however, the systems failed. MARCH 2014 SURVEY On March 20, 2014, AHCA conducted a complaint survey and a follow-up survey to the February 2014 survey. During the March 2014 survey, Janice Kicklighter served as the ANE prevention coordinator for Bayou Shores. On February 13, 2014,9/ Resident BJ was admitted to Bayou Shores from another health care facility. Sometime after BJ was admitted, paperwork indicating BJ’s history as a sex offender was provided to Bayou Shores. Exactly when this information was provided and to whom is unclear. Once BJ was assigned to a floor, CNA Daniels was assigned to assist BJ, and tasked to give BJ a shower. CNA Daniels observed that BJ was unable to transfer from his bed to the wheelchair without assistance; however, CNA Daniels, with assistance, was able to transfer him, and took him to the shower via a wheelchair. It is unclear if CNA Daniels shared his observation with any other Bayou Shores staff. Several hours after BJ’s admission, Mr. Thompson, Bayou Shores’ then administrator, was informed that BJ had been admitted. Mr. Thompson conferred with the director of nursing (DON) and the director of therapy (director). The director immediately assessed BJ that evening. The director then advised Mr. Thompson and the DON that her initial contact with BJ was less than satisfactory. BJ declined to cooperate in the assessment, and the director advised Mr. Thompson and the DON that BJ could not get out of bed without assistance. Mr. Thompson, the DON and the director did not provide any further care instructions or directions to Bayou Shores staff regarding BJ’s care or stay at that time. A failure to cooperate does not ensure safety for either BJ or other residents. The day after his admission, BJ was assessed by a psychiatrist. Thereafter, Mr. Thompson notified nearby schools and BJ’s roommate (roommate) that BJ was a sexual offender. Shortly after his conversation with the roommate, Mr. Thompson directed that a “one-on-one” be established with BJ, which means a staff member was to be with BJ at all times. BJ was evaluated again and removed from the facility. Bayou Shores did not immediately implement its policy and procedures to ensure its residents were free from the risk of ANE. Hearsay testimony was rampant in this case. Mr. Thompson testified that he spoke with BJ’s roommate about an alleged sexual advance. However, the lack of direct testimony from the alleged victim (or other direct witness) fails to support the hearsay testimony and thus there is no credible evidence needed to support a direct sexually aggressive act. Rather, the fact that Mr. Thompson claims that he was made aware of the alleged sexual attempt, yet failed to institute any of Bayou Shores policies to investigate or assure resident safety is the violation. JULY 2014 COMPLAINT SURVEY In June 2015, Resident JN left the second floor at Bayou Shores without any staff noticing. A complaint was filed. At the time of the June 2014 incident (the basis for the July Survey), Bayou Shores’ second floor was a limited access floor secured through a key system. Some residents on the second floor had medical, psychiatric, cognitive or dementia (Alzheimer) issues, while other residents choose to live there. There are two elevators that service the second floor; one, close to the nurses’ station, and the second, towards the back of the floor. There was no direct line of sight to the nurses’ station from either elevator. To gain access to the second floor, a visitor obtained an elevator key from the lobby receptionist, inserted the key into the elevator portal which brought the elevator to the lobby, the elevator doors opened, the visitor entered the elevator, traveled to the second floor, exited the elevator, and the elevator doors closed. To leave the floor, the visitor would use the same system in reverse. At the time of the June incident, visitors could come and go to the second floor unescorted. Additionally, Bayou Shores had video surveillance capabilities in the elevator area, but no staff member was assigned to monitor either elevator. Mr. Selleck, Advanced Center’s administrator, sought JN’s placement at Bayou Shores because he thought Bayou Shores offered a more secure environment than Advanced Center. Advanced Center was an unlocked facility and the only precaution it had to thwart exit-seeking behavior was by using a Wander Guard.10/ JN was admitted to Bayou Shores on Friday evening, June 20, 2014, from Advanced Center. Based upon JN’s admitting documentation, Bayou Shores knew or should have known of JN’s exit-seeking behavior. JN slept through his first night at Bayou Shores without incident. On June 21, his first full day at Bayou Shores, JN had breakfast, walked around the second floor, spoke with staff on the second floor and had lunch. At a time unknown, on June 21, JN left the second floor and exited the Bayou Shores facility. JN did not tell staff that he was leaving or where he was going. Upon discovering that JN was missing, Bayou Shores’ staff thoroughly searched the second floor. When JN was not found there, the other floors were also searched along with the smoking patio. JN was not found on Bayou Shores’ property. Thereafter, Bayou Shores’ staff went outside the facility and located JN at a nearby bus stop. The exact length of time that JN was outside Bayou Shores’ property remains unknown. Staff routinely checks on residents. However, there was no direct testimony as to when JN left the second floor; just that he went missing. Staff instituted the policy and procedure to locate JN, and did so, but failed to undertake any investigation to determine how JN left Bayou Shores without any staff noticing. NOTICE OF INTENT TO DENY AHCA’s Notice was issued on January 15, 2015. Bayou Shores was cited for alleged Class I deficient practices in each of the three conducted surveys: failure to have end-of-life decisions as reflected in a signed DNR order; failure to safe- guard residents from a sexual offender; and failure to prevent a resident from leaving undetected and wandering outside the facility.
Recommendation Based on the foregoing Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, it is RECOMMENDED that the Agency for Health Care Administration enter a final order revoking Bayou Shores license to operate a nursing home; and denying its application for licensure renewal. DONE AND ENTERED this 21st day of July, 2016, in Tallahassee, Leon County, Florida. S LYNNE A. QUIMBY-PENNOCK Administrative Law Judge Division of Administrative Hearings The DeSoto Building 1230 Apalachee Parkway Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3060 (850) 488-9675 Fax Filing (850) 921-6847 www.doah.state.fl.us Filed with the Clerk of the Division of Administrative Hearings this 21st day of July, 2016.
